Principios de Economia 6ta Edicion Mankiw

See
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236130211
Perspectives on design creativity and

innovation research
Article · January 2013
CITATION READS
1 146
2 authors, including:
Gavin Melles
Swinburne University of Technology
100 PUBLICATIONS 295 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Sustainability and Development at the MSc level in the UK View project
PhD research and education in design in Germany View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Gavin Melles on 14 June 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Swinburne University of Technology]
On: 04 February 2013, At: 18:46
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Design

Creativity and Innovation
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tdci20
Perspectives on design creativity and

innovation research
a
Editorial board of IJDCI
a
International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation
Version of record first published: 21 Jan 2013.
To cite this article: Editorial board of IJDCI (2013): Perspectives on design creativity and innovation
research , International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1:1, 1-42
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.754657
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 2013
Vol. 1, No. 1, 1–42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.754657
EXTENDED EDITORIAL
Perspectives on design creativity and innovation research
Editorial board of IJDCI*
International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation

Downloaded by [Swinburne University of Technology] at 18:46 04 February 2013
(Received 19 October 2012; final version received 28 November 2012)
The aim of this extended editorial is to offer a perspective on design creativity and
innovation research on the occasion of launching the International Journal of Design
Creativity and Innovation. Thirty six members of the editorial board present their
expectations, views, or opinions on the topics of the journal. All of these articles are
presented in Section 2. In Section 3, summaries of the 36 articles are consolidated. This
editorial also analyzes keywords from each of the articles, and the results are visualized
in Section 4. The keyword analysis covers not only those words taken directly from
each of the articles but also the implicit keywords that are suggested by the explicit
ones. We believe this extended editorial will help the researchers, in particular young
researchers, comprehend the essence of design creativity and innovation research and
obtain a clue to tackle the new discipline.
Keywords: design creativity; innovation; perspective; keyword analysis
1. Introduction
Indeed, design and the creativity and innovation involved in it are “living things moving in
a field.” If you want to know about “living things moving in a field,” there is no point in
even trying unless one engages them while they are living and moving in the field. This
makes the process all the more difficult. One can photograph them, capture them on video,
raise and breed them, cut them up and dissect them, or stuff and mount them, all in the
attempt to get closer to them. Once one has done so, however, they are no longer really
living things moving in a field, and they have been reduced to something completely
different from what was once moving about vibrantly. In the end, such an approach cannot
possibly tell a thing about those creatures living in the field.
The process known as research, particularly the writing of scientific papers, has its own
limits in describing “living things” that are alive, because once one sets about the task of
describing them, it is necessary to restrict or stop the movements of those “living things.”
By limiting their movements, they may be described with greater accuracy, but their
natural movements then slip away from the scope of such delineation. In this way, the
attempt comes to nothing, when what one really wanted was simply to comprehend their
natural movements in the field. So what can be done?
*Email: dci@org.kobe-u.ac.jp
q 2013 Taylor & Francis

2 Editorial board
One possibility is to go out into the field and move with them. By moving with them, one
might come to realize why they move and what it is to move. The drawback of this approach is
that one cannot give an account of something while moving, and therefore it is necessary to
remember what the movement felt like and set it down later. That is the only way to go about
it – one has to stop and record things before forgetting about them. Also, when moving, one
must be completely absorbed and immersed in the movement. This is because there is no hope
of coming close to the essence of the movement if one is simply acting impromptu without
being engrossed in the act. On the other hand, one cannot provide an account with accuracy
while being lost in the movement. To describe the movement accurately, a dispassionate view
is needed. If only there were a way to set forth an accurate account while remaining
passionate – unfortunately, such a way has yet to be discovered.
Another method is to raise living things well and observe them; however, this is easier
said than done. To raise them well means to raise them so that they begin to exhibit their wild
instincts and run about in the field. The catch is that one cannot do this without a priori
knowledge of how they actually live in the wilderness. Now, when it comes to design, what
may seem to be taken for granted might not in fact be anything that should be viewed as only
natural, and rather it may have actually been impossible from the start.
Design research approaches in a “laboratory setting” are similar to the latter method.
To recapitulate what has been stated earlier, however, this is definitely different from the
research approach in that one cannot make any experiments without knowledge of design.
That is to say, it has to be a demonstrative experiment, rather than an experiment to gain
knowledge. Furthermore, because it must be an experiment to show the way in which living
things exist, it must show the subject animatedly running about the field; that is, the subject has
to be allowed to become enthusiastic. Both the experimenter and the subject need to be
passionate and immersed. If this were to be achieved, however, the experiment’s objective
accuracy would be forfeited, as only the experimenter and the subject would know if they had
become enthusiastic and to what extent. Can we really expect to make accurate observations
when the success or failure of an experiment is determined by such factors?
At the same time, we researchers do not fulfill our roles if new findings are made
known only to ourselves. Rather, it is important that they be accumulated for future
generations to appreciate as a part of the academic discipline. One might very well wonder
what this academic discipline is. What are we supposed to make of the concept of
falsifiability, which is considered essential for scientific research?
One fundamental question after another then springs up. One might think that this is a
matter of course, since we are essentially chasing something that we cannot catch.
Nonetheless, it is also certain that in the pursuit of design, particularly the creativity and
innovation involved in it, what we are running after will give us something that cannot be
attained elsewhere. And so, we do not give up.
It was with these ideas in mind that the International Journal of Design Creativity and
Innovation was founded. In publishing its first issue, 36 members of the editorial board
contributed their candid thoughts about design creativity and innovation. Their passion
can be sensed in the next section, “Messages from the editorial board.” To make it easy to
get an idea of the whole picture, the 36 articles have been classified under six categories.
The first category is titled “Introductory general message,” which contains 10 articles
describing the expectations and mindset in approaching design creativity and innovation
from a broad perspective. The contributing authors are Chris McMahon (University of
Bristol, UK), Udo Lindemann (Technical University Munich, Germany), John S. Gero
(George Mason University, VA, USA), Larry Leifer and Martin Steinert (Stanford
University, CA, USA), Ernest Edmonds (University of Technology, Sydney, Australia),
International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 3
Gabriela Goldschmidt (Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Israel), Linda Candy

(University of Technology, Sydney, Australia), Mary Lou Maher (The University of
Sydney, Australia), David C. Brown (Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA,
USA), and Dorian Marjanović (University of Zagreb, Croatia).
The second category, “New research paradigm beyond pure science,” includes five
articles that emphasize the need for a new paradigm that goes beyond science in the
narrow, conventional sense of the word. The authors are Yoram Reich (Tel Aviv
University, Israel), Steven M. Smith (Texas A&M University, TX, USA), Petra Badke-
Schaub (TU Delft, The Netherlands), Paul A. Rodgers (Northumbria University, UK), and
Ricardo Sosa (Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore).
The third category is called “Context of design creativity and innovation.” Included
within are five articles detailing points of view that capture the concept of design creativity
and innovation. The authors are Rivka Oxman (Technion – Israel Institute of Technology,
Israel), Samuel Gomes (Université de Technologie de Belfort-Montbéliard, France),
Gavin Melles (Swinburne University of Technology, Australia), Toshiharu Taura (Kobe
University, Japan), and Kazuhiro Ueda (The University of Tokyo, Japan).
The fourth category includes five articles on Creative Thought, which are introduced
under the title of “What is creative thought?” The authors of the articles are Barbara
Tversky (Stanford University, CA, USA), Cynthia J. Atman (University of Washington,
Washington D.C., USA), Amaresh Chakrabarti (Indian Institute of Science, India),
Joaquim Lloveras (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain), and Yukari Nagai (Japan
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Japan).
In the fifth category, four articles that touch on the importance of the perspective of
innovation have been compiled. Titled “Design creativity for innovation,” articles by
Andy Dong (The University of Sydney, Australia), Gaetano Cascini (Politecnico di
Milano, Italy), Bernard Yannou (École Centrale Paris, France), and Shinji Nishiwaki
(Kyoto University, Japan) are featured in this category.
The sixth and last category is given the title of “Research methods for design creativity
and innovation” and contains seven articles by Ashok K. Goel (Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA), Yan Jin (University of Southern California, CA, USA),
Julie Linsey (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA), Kees Dorst (University
of Technology, Sydney, Australia), Armand Hatchuel (Mines ParisTech, France), Ian
Gwilt (Sheffield Hallam University, UK), and Thomas J. Howard (Technical University of
Denmark, Denmark), each of which suggests new research methodologies.
Section 3 puts together summaries of the 36 articles.
This extended editorial also analyzes keywords from the 36 articles, the results of
which can be found in Section 4. This keyword analysis covers not only those taken
directly from each of the articles but also the implicit keywords that lie behind those
explicit ones.
2. Messages from the editorial board

2.1. Introductory general message
2.1.1. Creativity and innovation: the essence of design? (Chris McMahon)
It is a great pleasure to be able to write on the occasion of the introduction of a new journal on
design creativity and innovation. In the early years of the twenty-first century, we confront
unprecedented challenges in our human endeavors. We have a burgeoning and aging
population; we face pressures on all types of resources from food to energy and materials; our
activities have damaging impacts on many aspects of our natural environment; and we live in
4 Editorial board
an intensely competitive world where economic prosperity depends on translating ingenuity

into products, services, and systems for sale in world markets. To meet these challenges, we
need to use the maximum capabilities of our intellect and ingenuity to design these products,
processes, and systems, while at the same time respecting the constraints of markets and trade.
In this context, creativity and innovation in all their aspects are vital to the realization
of the potential of human ingenuity and are arguably the essence of design. It has been
proposed that creativity is intrinsic to design reasoning (Hatchuel & Weil, 2003), and yet,
despite extensive studies of innovation and the introduction of hundreds of tools and
techniques that purport to assist in creativity, the topics in general and their role in design
in particular are incompletely understood. I hope that the new journal will help to give
original insights in this regard, at all levels from a fundamental understanding of the nature
of creativity and innovation and how to characterize them to an in-depth understanding of

their relevance and application in all aspects of design endeavor. Especially, I hope that
prospective authors will submit papers that explore and are relevant to the entire spectrum
of design activities including all stages in the design process, for both radical and
incremental design by individuals and by teams, and covering the design of artifacts
ranging from simple products to complex systems.
2.1.2. Creativity in engineering design: basis for a better future! (Udo Lindemann)
A lot of people in science as well as in practice talk about creativity, creativity as a driver
of innovation, market success, etc. But there are a number of points, which are under
discussion:
What is creativity about? Creativity of children, artists, bankers, and engineers – is it
more or less the same type of cognitive work or is it different? In the development of a new
product or Product Service System (PSS), are the (industrial) designers the creative part of
the job and are the engineering designers the more or less creative part?
How to teach and train creativity in engineering? How to measure creativity? How to
build creative teams? Which kind and which degree of creativity is under which conditions
positive? How to identify and to prevent the negative side of creativity?
Regarding creativity in engineering design, a lot of experience and opinion-based
literature is available. Creativity in practice is based on individual or organizational
expertise and its training is dependent on consultants. In science, it seems that most of the
empirical research is judging the output of a “creative” process and not the process itself.
In addition, the experiments usually tackle only small problems. I am convinced that we
will not be able to teach and train creativity in engineering design in an efficient way, as
long as we do not really understand creative processes.
Research in this field is demanding, as there is a lack of clear definitions and as we
have to deal with individuals in specific situations.
I hope that this journal will provide a platform to discuss and develop this important
field of research, as creativity always was and still is a major driver of further development
of mankind.
2.1.3. Design creativity research: where to from here? (John S. Gero)

There is an increasing awareness that design creativity is not a unitary concept but is a
multifaceted idea that cannot be encapsulated within a single concept (Gero & Maher,
1993). The question “where is the creativity in design?” is no longer answered simply by
“in processes executed by the designer,” although such processes play important roles.
Creativity is thought to be a social construction that involves the value systems of many
players, not just those of the designer (Gero, 2011; Gero & Kannengiesser, 2009). While
the focus in past research has been on processes that assist the designer in producing
designs that have the potential to be evaluated as being creative (Coyne, Rosenman,
Radford, & Gero, 1987), future research is likely to bifurcate into a number of directions.
The major future research directions are as follows:
. Creative processes are likely to continue as a major design research area, especially
in the search for computational processes (Gero, 1996, 2000; Saunders & Gero,
2002) that augment rather than mimic human design processes (Suwa, Gero, &
Purcell, 2000).
. Evaluation of the creativity of designs needs to be a research focus from both
cognitive and computational dimensions.

. Team creativity, since most professional design is carried out in teams, needs to
become a major research focus.
. Social creativity is a burgeoning research area with the modeling of social
interactions and their effects on creative designing (Sosa & Gero, 2005, 2012). This
is a new area that has the potential to link together a number of other research areas.
. Cognitive neuroscience of design creativity is an yet to be developed research area
that has the potential to lay physiological foundations to our cognitive
understanding of design creativity across creative design processes, evaluation of
creativity of designs, team cognition, and social interactions.
Design creativity research has the potential to provide foundational knowledge to support
the highest endeavors of designers.
2.1.4. On being creative: a short history and call for abductive questioning (Larry Leifer
and Martin Steinert)
In the beginning, I was a creative fellow, my mother told me so. I went on to break a lot of
things and rules, my father told me not to. Since then things have gotten worse.
How might this semi-fable inspire a journal dedicated to design creativity and innovation
research? Questions. Questions.
Perhaps it really is more about the questions than the decisions we make in life and who
asks them. We hypothesize that things have gotten worse because experts ask most of
the questions. They tend to have a deep-seated preference for the logic of inductive
reasoning, such as a statistical syllogism arguing with the probability of a state or event
based on repeated prior observations, and deductive reasoning such as categorical
syllogism: A ! C if A ! B and B ! C.
But how else can we get to C? Even more importantly, how do we get to C0 , and C00 ?
The kid mentioned above who broke things, typically rules of thought, was asking C-type
questions that generate exploratory hypotheses. Can we forgive him for asking abductive
questions?
As C.S. Peirce, a famously misfit mathematician/logician, argued the past is all about
the logic of induction and deduction. The future is about the logic of abduction. These
famously irritable questions are of the form: “what if . . . ”; “how many ways could we . . . ”;
and “there has to be a better way!” assertions.
We are deeply concerned that this journal should be a champion of abduction.
We promise to do our very best to further this point of view. To this end we include some
6 Editorial board
Figure 1. The induction– deduction – effort to abduct (IDEA) space with a gestural hint at linear
versus nonlinear thinking.
basic readings and references (Cohen, 1916; Josephson & Josephson, 1996; Peirce, 1940,
1958a, 1958b; Poole, 1990; Steinert & Leifer, 2012; Thagard & Shelley, 1997) and give a
concrete example by asking: What if our journal were to be of the open “peer commentary”
format as used by the journal Brain and Behavior, a community dedicated to
comprehending the underlying neuro-anatomical roots of the human condition, including
creativity? In Figure 1, we express the space, but not the road map of our concerns.
2.1.5. Creative interactive system design (Ernest Edmonds)

We could frame our joint concerns around the common question: What are the themes that
might be most significant for this journal in its first few years? I look at the designed world
around us and how it is changing and, for me, one particular feature stands out. The modern
world is increasingly interactive. From instruction manuals to phones to the seats in our cars
to art, a key feature of the design is the interactive experience of using or engaging with the
object. The creativity in design is increasingly about interaction and creative interactive
system design is, hence, an important area for our new journal. So what, in this context, are
we being creative about? Not making objects. Not even making processes. We are being
creative about providing experiences.
Where are the bodies of knowledge that can best support further research into creative
interactive system design and human interactive experience? Which communities are
important to collaborate with in order to advance our understanding? I make two
suggestions.
The field of human –computer interaction (HCI) has traditionally been a design
discipline that stands apart from the general design community. In recent years, it has
increasingly emphasized what it terms “experience design” and creativity. A great body of
knowledge, skills, and research methods is available in this community and so it is my first
choice (see, for example, Candy & Costello, 2008).
The second community that I select is interactive art. This is not an area that one
necessarily thinks of in terms of research, yet in fact the very complexity of interaction
design, in terms of both computer technology and human experience, is increasingly
demanding a research approach. Why should we be particularly interested in this relatively
new research field? We should be interested in the way that design so often takes an
interest in art. Artists play with the future, invent the future, and often point the way ahead
that, if we wish to innovate, we often find attractive to follow (see, for example, Candy &
Edmonds, 2011).
So, I suggest that one major theme for this journal should be creative interaction design
and that reports of collaborations with HCI researchers and interactive artists would be
very welcome, particularly if they advance design studies by drawing upon those other
bodies of knowledge.
2.1.6. Perspectives on design creativity and innovation research: the primacy of design
cognition (Gabriela Goldschmidt)
Manifestations of creativity make the world a more exciting place to live in, and in design
this means more appealing and better-fitted man-made objects of all genres and scales.
From a historical perspective, we want to know something about the giants who were
responsible for major breakthroughs in technology, science, and the arts: they are our
heroes. The artifacts whose creation they are responsible for are subjects of our
admiration: we want to see them in museums or visit them in situ. But most of all, we want
to know what are the factors that made it possible for creative designers to come up with
creative products. We therefore need to study the creative process (Gardner, 1988).
Here, we make a sharp distinction: not only world-class breakthroughs and geniuses
alone should be the targets of our investigation, as we cannot really learn from them; we
can only acknowledge their contribution to the world. But we live life from day to day, and
the acts we undertake can be more or less creative, at a quotidian magnitude (see Boden,
1994). We want to find out the factors that are responsible for potential creativity in our
thought and action so as to possibly support them. It is the design process we should
concentrate on: it needs to be unpacked into its constituents (Goldschmidt, forthcoming).
We still do not have good predictive tools to tell us who will make a good designer,
because we do not know enough about the thought components that, if combined in a
certain manner, carry the best potential to lead to creative design outcomes.
Therefore, design cognition is the greatest challenge for the design creativity research
community. We have already left behind the notion that creative design is “magic” that
cannot be fathomed, but we still have no fundamental theory of design creativity and the
good research hitherto undertaken is guided by the (creative?) intuitions of individuals
who look at design creativity from one or another angle. Today, we need a coordinated
effort to develop a well-founded agenda that will help make true advances in unveiling the
nature of creative design processes.
2.1.7. A practitioner perspective on creativity and innovation research (Linda Candy)

Creativity is a force from which innovation arises. However, many years of struggling to
understand where and how the necessary creativity for innovation arises have yet to
produce definitive explanations. Why is this? Are we so poor at research that we cannot
achieve clarity about something generally agreed to be essential for individual and
collective well-being? In the context of the aims of this new and exciting journal, I propose
8 Editorial board
a perspective that directs our attention to the vital role of creative practitioners in
understanding how to innovate creatively.
To be truly innovative, practitioners are almost always engaged in research, although
they may not necessarily call it by its name. Donald Schön argued that professional
practitioners who were most effective were those “for whom research functions not as a
distraction from practice but as a development of it” (Schön, 1983). More recently,
Norman (2005) advocated making research integral to working practice as a living part of
the creative process. When Lawson (2002, p. 2) makes the point that “design concerns
itself, not with the way the world is or was, but the way it might be or should be,” he is
drawing attention to the inherent creativity embedded in practice.
There is a need to develop a theoretical discipline around the notion of practice as
inherent to creativity and research as an integral part of practice. I believe that a promising
way forward lies in the possibilities offered by embedding research in the practitioner
process – in what is known as “practice-based research.” The role of the artifact in
practice-based research is critical in several ways: first, the making process provides the
action-based context whereby the practitioner explores ideas and generates new questions;
second, prototypes provide interim opportunities for reflection and systematic evaluation;
third, the finished product can be exhibited, assessed, and evaluated by others and become
a sharable entity. The finished artifact is likely to embody many aspects of the initial
concepts, but more often new ideas are realized during the process: it is vital that there is
documentation recording the reflections that have shaped the outcome.
At present, a large part of what creative practitioners do and think is reported by those
viewing disinterestedly from outside. Many artists remain silent. As Sullivan says, “this
makes it easier for artists to pass on the job of defining and defending what they do to
critics, aestheticians and historians” (Sullivan, 2010). If our understanding of the nature of
practitioner-derived knowledge has a beneficial impact on both research and practice, then
part of the task of disseminating new thinking and knowledge from practice must fall to
the practitioners themselves. A new community of researchers is emerging that is already
producing a rich source of practice-based knowledge (Candy & Edmonds, 2011). This new
journal is an opportunity to extend and promote the knowledge about creativity and
innovation.
2.1.8. Toward making computers and people more creative (Mary Lou Maher)
Computing has played a significant role in advancing our understanding of design
creativity by providing formal languages for expressing models of creativity as well as
providing interactive digital environments for augmenting human creativity. These two
perspectives lead to different goals for design creativity and innovation research:
computer-based creativity, in which the computer is being creative; and augmenting
human creativity, in which HCI changes creative cognition.
Computer-based design creativity. Formalizing creative processes in the context of an
articulated design search space has led to the development of computer-based creativity.
The research and development of creative processes in computational systems shows that
computers can play an active role in being creative, with or without the guidance of human
designers (Maher, 2012). Three roles that computers have in creativity research are
simulation: computational models that reflect our understanding of individual and
collective creative cognition (Gomez & Gero, 2010; Sosa & Gero, 2008a), synthesis:
computational models that generate creative designs (Gero, 2000; Gu & Maher, 2004), and
evaluation: computational models for the recognition of a creative design within a space of
possible designs (Maher & Fisher, 2012).
Computer-augmented human creativity in design. The use of computers in the design
process changes the way people design and, therefore, has the potential to enhance or
augment human creativity. With a focus on the impact of interaction between
computational systems and people, two roles that computing can play are: augmenting
individual cognition and enabling large-scale collective creativity. Cognitive interventions
augment human creativity when the computational system participates in the search and
exploration processes, for example, by generating alternatives (Maher & Tang, 2003),
managing constraints (Aish & Woodbury, 2005), or providing visual and tangible
interaction with digital design models (Gul & Maher, 2009; Kim & Maher, 2005).
Additionally, human creativity can be augmented and amplified through the use of social
networking approaches that bring large numbers of people together to participate in
finding creative solutions to wicked or complex problems (Maher, Paulini, & Murty,
2010). The diversity that can be achieved in crowd sourcing has led to an emergent area of
research in the mechanisms and incentive structures that enable large-scale social
creativity and innovation.
2.1.9. Breaking old habits (David C. Brown)

When we look at computational research in design creativity in particular, it is very
limited by previous studies and by what is obviously possible to implement. For example,
representations of function are limited. Tools (e.g., representation languages) help us, but
also limit us. I suspect that similar limitations exist in experimental work on design
creativity as well. One might say that design creativity research suffers from fixation.
The psychological and popular technical literature reveals quite a lot of agreement
about what, in general, is involved with producing creative designs. For example, Stewart
(2008), in Launching the imagination: A comprehensive guide to basic design, has an
impressive chapter on Creative Thinking.
Her suggestions include: break old habits, transform familiar reasoning, produce many
possibilities, evaluate/critique to identify strengths and weaknesses, explore and experiment,
combine ideas, discover new requirements and sub-goals, abstract and organize details, seek
improvements, seek associations, pursue an independent path, mix risk-taking with rule-
following, reframe problems, and be prepared to fail more.
I suspect the field needs to break from its fixation to focus on how people achieve all of
these suggested goals (and other similar ones) to enhance creative design thinking and how
we might model these goals computationally.
For example, what does “break old habits” mean in a computation system? How many
ways can it be done? Do small deviations work as well as big ones? Can we detect when
people do it? In what ways can they be encouraged to do so successfully?
Finally, let me say how pleased I am to have been invited to be a member of the
inaugural Steering Advisory Board for this journal. I hope that I can help to steer it well.
2.1.10. Perspectives on design creativity and innovation research (Dorian Marjanović)

Design knowledge is founded on academic subjects, but the essence of design is much
broader than comprehended by formally proven and mathematically sound theories of
design, design optimization, design grammars, and modern IT tools. Human creativity,
intuition, and adaptation to new situations are of vital importance in new design and
10 Editorial board
product development issues on all levels from problem search up to assembly and
delivery, from very local up to global.
“Bringing ideas to life is the essence of design (DESIGN 2012)” (Marjanović et al.,
2012). The importance of human creativity, inventiveness, and intuition in design has been
under recurrent concern of many design researchers. Research treatment of the
combination of creativity and systematic procedures has been differently balanced,
depending on design domains, schools, and theories.
Viewed through keywords of research papers reported at DESIGN conferences in the
period 2002 –2012 (Figure 2), the concept of creativity forms a significant cloud of related
terms, such as conceptual design, simulation-based design, product-service systems,
innovation, and design theory (Marjanović, 2012).
In the whole body of research in DESIGN as shown in Figure 2, the “Creativity” cloud
is clearly visible but is still somewhat “cloudy.” The same analysis on the data set formed
from the articles reported on the ICDC 2010 conference shown in Figure 3 (Taura &
Nagai, 2010) illustrates the structure of interlinked terms: creativity, collaboration,
process, methodology, conceptualization, cognition education, and visualization. Each of
these terms may be a research topic on its own, but the goal should not be further sub-
specialization and granularity but the discussion of the whole. Approach to research
creativity in design should be essentially human-centered and participatory. The scientific
correctness must be in line with industrial pragmatic needs. Discrepancy between design
theory presented in the current body of design research and industrial application is too
Figure 2. Clouds of interrelated keywords in research papers on DESIGN conferences during

2002– 2012.
Figure 3. Clouds of interrelated keywords in research papers on the ICDC 2010 conference.
evident to be ignored in the new journal. Starting the new journal is a demanding task –
demanding for publishers, editors, reviewers, and authors, not to mention the readers. It is
not an easy task to write, review, prepare, and publish papers with really new contributions
to theory and practice, contributions with well-formulated and validated research. The new
journal essentially requires creativity and innovation potentials of all involved.
2.2. New research paradigm beyond pure science

2.2.1. Design creativity and innovation research: practice what we preach (Yoram
Reich)
Papers in psychology journals, and more generally in the social and behavioral sciences,
most often adhere to the American Psychological Association (APA) publication manual
regarding their style and structure (American Psychological Association, 2009). Writers
will use this manual because it is mandatory, but the reasons behind it include making it
easier for readers to understand material written in different journals, simplifying the
generation of papers by presenting guidance to writing choices, and easing the work of
publishers. Established in 1929 as a recommendation, that later turned in 1952 into a strict
manual for scientific writing, APA style discourages creativity in the use of text and
language. You cannot see an article in a psychology journal displaying its logic by
caricatures or comics.
As a designer, how do I view such practices? How do I view a situation in which there
are significant constraints imposed on the final product (paper), knowing that such
constraints might limit my ability to address the requirements of the stakeholders
(reviewers, readers, publisher, etc.)?
As a designer, I wish to maintain as many degrees of freedom to later design stages;
I wish to have an extensive design space to explore; I want that each product (paper) will
make apparent the quality of its design. When it comes to a journal on creativity and
innovation, these desires go even further; I hope that authors experiment with new ways of
conducting studies, on completely new topics and use new ways to report them. When the
12 Editorial board
research goals are innovative, I expect authors to challenge any guidance or convention
and defend their choices creatively. There is no single method better than others (Reich,
2010), and when it comes to creativity and innovation, new methods, tools, and ways of
thinking have to be invented. Only by creatively addressing new topics in creativity will
we advance our understanding of creativity in non-conventional ways. A new journal is an
opportunity and an obligation to do things differently – let us practice what we preach
(Reich, 2008).
2.2.2. Design creativity: a theoretical and empirical science (Steven M. Smith)

That creative design has an inspired and celebrated history and a strong presence in our
contemporary world is obvious. How does creative design work, how can it be improved,
and how can that knowledge be used to educate effective creative designers? It may be that
only a few humans are capable of creative design. Alternatively, there may be methods
used by gifted designers, which can be understood and taught to others. This latter view
makes creative design an accessible, knowable body of knowledge, rather than an activity
of rarely endowed individuals.
The scientific method is demonstrably the best method for exploring and explicating
any body of knowledge, including creative design. Those interested in research on design
creativity must understand the most important elements of the scientific method, and insist
that students and colleagues do the same. These critical elements include theoretically
guided research, hypothesis testing, rigorous experimental design, clearly defined and
validated measures (Shah, Vargas-Hernandez, & Smith, 2003), and alignment of research
among multiple levels of complexity and ecological validity (Hernandez, Shah, & Smith,
2010). Scientific theories must be falsifiable, that is, capable of disproof if specifiable
hypothetical results are observed. Researchers must struggle for both ecological validity
and internal validity.
An overly general “theory of design,” that is, one that attempts to account for the entire
design process or experience, is not likely to be scientifically testable because to describe
and explain the world of design, it must be remarkably flexible. Falsifying such flexible
theories, that is, specifying which hypothetical observations could prove that the theory is
wrong, is likely impossible. A specific and well-qualified theory that focuses on one aspect
of design is likely to be far more useful because such theories are testable. Likewise, an
overly general measure of creativity is not likely to be as useful as better-specified
measures, because the concept of “creativity” is so nebulous that experts commonly
disagree on its definition.
The International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation must emphasize and
support these scientific principles by insisting upon them as standards for its published
research. In doing so, the journal will help the establishment and progress of the budding
science of creative design.
2.2.3. A pleading for a holistic research approach of creativity and innovation in design
(Petra Badke-Schaub)
The International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation should be an
interdisciplinary platform for investigating and discussing ideas and new developments
in the field of creativity and innovation. Contributions should provide research covering
the complexity of creativity and innovation and arrive at meaningful knowledge. Now the
question needs to be asked: How could research achieve more effective results compared
to existing research?
In the past, research has established a variety of results, but there seems to be a gap
between the amount of studies on creativity and the relevance in terms of transfer into
practice (Badke-Schaub, 2007). Mechanisms of successful innovations have been offered
since more than 25 years (e.g., Souder, 1987), and new innovation strategies arise in the
same frequency as methods claiming to enhance creativity (Smith, 1998). Comprehensive
explanation models have been developed (Amabile, 1983) but do not relate to the context
of design.
Another problem is that empirical research on creativity is often conceptualized as
experimental research. Most of these studies are producing singular results standing alone
and are hardly mirroring the complexity of the “real world.” These results do not provide
further insights to nurture the development of theories or application models on creativity
and innovation.
Facing the complexity and various contexts of creativity and innovation, creativity
needs to be investigated in context, as proposed by the ETHOS model, which distinguishes
five different modules: environment, technology, human, organization, and system (see
Figure 4). The creative process itself, as it is composed of different cognitive activities
such as defining the problem, analyzing the context, etc. (see Figure 5), drives innovation
not only as a continuous process but also as disruptive moments in product and service
design – supported by tools and methods.
Research should be synchronized between the three perspectives of empirical
investigation, theory development, and application (see Figure 6) (Badke-Schaub, Lloyd,
van der Lugt, & Roozenburg, 2005).
Figure 4. The ETHOS model: environment, technology, human, organization, system, and
interrelations.
14 Editorial board
Figure 5. The creative process as driver of innovation.
Empirical Theoretical Applied

Perspective Perspective Perspective
Definition of relevant Development, inte- Implementation,

phenomena, issues, gration, adaptation of adaptation and
topics, designing theories, concepts, validation of
empirical studies frameworks theories, concepts
Figure 6. The integrated model of empirical, theoretical, and applied perspectives in research.
Combining the research approach with the ETHOS model provides a holistic access to
creativity and innovation and will hopefully arrive at a better understanding of creativity
and innovation in design.
2.2.4. My perspectives on design creativity and innovation research (Paul A. Rodgers)

The International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation promises to be an exciting
dissemination channel for researchers involved in design, architecture, art, and other
related disciplines. I am particularly pleased to note that the International Journal of
Design Creativity and Innovation promises to not only promote existing research
disciplines but also pioneer new ones that lie beyond, across, and outside of the
intermediate spaces between conventional and more established disciplines such as
engineering, business, computer science, social science, art, design, and many other fields.
This phenomenon of hybrid creative practice (Seymour, 2006; West, 2007) is not new, but
its role in the challenging and super-complex world that we now inhabit deserves greater
research focus. Contemporary design is typified by fluid, evolving patterns of practice that
regularly traverse, transcend, and transfigure historical disciplinary and conceptual
boundaries, a practice I have labeled “alterplinarity” – an alternative disciplinarity – in
an earlier paper (Rodgers & Bremner, 2011). Moreover, the fact that the journal will
provide a forum for discussing both theoretical and practical perspectives surrounding the
nature and potential of creativity and innovation in a vast array of subjects aligned to
design is most welcome.
Design research, as most of the people involved in this new journal will acknowledge, is
not like scientific research. Design research is not concerned with what exists but with what
might be. Research in a design context breaks with the determinisms of the past; it continually
challenges, provokes, and disrupts the status quo. While scientific research relies on and
utilizes abstract mathematical explanations, design research uses representative images,
physical models, and 3D prototypes in the design and development of things that do not yet
exist. Design research also differs from other types of research, for the most part, in that it is
concerned with the plausibility and appropriateness of proposals, while scientific research, for
instance, is concerned with universal truths. Design research tends to produce knowledge that
can be defined as transdisciplinary and heterogeneous in nature and that which seeks to
improve the world (Krippendorff, 2007; Kuutti, 2007; Marshall & Bleecker, 2010).
I look forward to helping to shape the International Journal of Design Creativity and
Innovation in the months and years ahead, to help promote its ambitious, wide-ranging,
and inclusive editorial policy, and to help young (and old) researchers with fresh ideas and
new thinking to establish themselves in this dynamic, challenging, and important area.
2.2.5. Computational social laboratories to understand creativity and innovation

(Ricardo Sosa)
Disruptive change is a topic of high relevance in research and professional domains related
to creativity and innovation. There is great value in understanding how ideas, people, and
organizations trigger and adapt to change under uncertain environments. In recent years,
studies in the motivational and cognitive processes of creative behavior have yielded
relevant insights. Equally useful have been the studies of innovation management and the
social diffusion of new products and ideas. Disciplinary traditions may vary significantly
in their units of analysis, methods, and assumptions, yet this has contributed to a more
complete understanding of the complex dynamics of disruptive or radical change.
Fundamental questions still remain open about how change emerges in different domains
and in multidimensional systems, from our minds to our societies.
An original approach of inquiry consists of applying Computational Social Science in
order to “grow” target phenomena of interest from artificial models such as multiagent
systems and cellular automata (Gilbert, 2010). These studies complement laboratory and field
studies and have contributed key insights of relevance to design scholars and practitioners
including the role of social structures in innovation (Sosa & Gero, 2005) and the
complementary roles of strangers and acquaintances (Sosa & Gero, 2008b). A modeling
framework for the computational simulation of creativity and innovation has been derived
from a multidisciplinary perspective (Sosa, Gero, & Jennings, 2009), and it is being used to
build models of design agents in brainstorming sessions. Some of the research questions
currently addressed include the differences between ideation in isolation and groups, the
effects of incubation in creativity, the potential of ideas as connectors in a network, the balance
of random versus guided search strategies, and the impact of diversity in teams.
In order to extend our understanding and management of change and its
consequences, more connections are required across disciplines. Design is a cross-
disciplinary activity with a special emphasis on creativity and innovation due to its role
as a source of social change. With a design orientation, the International Journal of
16 Editorial board
Design Creativity and Innovation is likely to stimulate the creation, implementation, and
testing of new methods and tools for the evidence-based practice and education of
creativity and innovation.
2.3. Context of design creativity and innovation

2.3.1. Perspectives on design innovation research in a period of cultural change:
technology-driven informed design innovation (Rivka Oxman)
While we expect that the nature of design as a cognitive phenomenon is independent of
cultural context, emerging novel technologies can potentially profoundly affect our
understanding of design creativity and design innovation. Such cultural change and
technological transformation is currently occurring in the relationship between digital

media, technology, and design.
Why is the cultural transformation of technology significant for creativity and
innovation? With the rapid development of digital design media and fabrication
technologies, the role of digital technologies is changing in design Originating as produc-
tion and customization technologies, emerging digital technologies such as fabrication
and robotics are now evolving as design media. Digital design media have fostered theories,
concepts, and models of design (Oxman, 2006). Beyond their instrumental functions,
advanced digital and computational environments are also becoming tools for thinking
design.
Some of the major characteristics of design in a period of technological change are
briefly introduced:
. Research by design is currently emerging as a medium of design innovation and
creativity. Experimental design supported by digital design and production media is
providing a broad evolution of emerging research-based design practices (Oxman,
2012). Experimental innovative research is also extending the boundaries of
disciplinary knowledge and experience.
. Computationally informed design provides for a new level of knowledge integration
in design as it supports a holistic cycle of design from design conception to
production (Scheurer, 2010).
. Fabrication and robotics as design media is a frontier of the digital in architecture
and product design and an area of promise for enhancing a range of innovative
design and development. Digital materiality (Gramazio & Kohler, 2008; Oxman &
Oxman, 2010) is a conceptual process of material design integrated with production
capabilities without visual representation.
. Coding and scripting are influencing a new culture of design. The current avail-
ability and support of coding and scripting systems for design and production offer
media for explicating a “logic” of design thinking (Burry, 2011). Certain of these
techniques may question our common assumptions regarding how design thinking
functions.
These models and techniques are influencing the production of new concepts, theories, and
models of design. Given that our conceptualization and understanding of innovation and
creativity in design will have to accommodate these novel models of design, we as a
research community will need to undertake empirical and experimental research programs
in this rapidly emerging research field. Furthermore, the impact upon design is so
fundamental that it challenges our current approaches to changing definitions of both
disciplinary knowledge and design pedagogy.
2.3.2. Knowledge management method and tools as starting points for design creativity
and innovation (Samuel Gomes)
In today’s competitive environment, design creativity and innovation are major keys
that can help the industry and the economy to overpass the current crisis in our highly
globalized market. They are so important that many researchers are currently undertaking
academic curriculum development, research activities, and technology transfers for
companies in various domains in this area, which opens some great opportunities for the
future.
Considering research issues and future research perspectives, it is important to have full
understanding of design creativity and innovation while considering various viewpoints and
questions that can drive future research activities. In order to have a better understanding of the
current design activities operated in companies, it is important to identify the gaps that we
have to bridge, when we observe, in Research and Development Departments of organiza-
tions, that most of the time and effort are spent on “re-design activities,” covering “Routine
design” and “Parametric design,” instead of “First design activities,” which include “Creative
design” and “Innovative design.” “High Productive” design methods and tools, based on
information management, knowledge management, knowledge-based engineering, and
advanced CAD modeling, can significantly reduce the time and effort allocated to routine
design activities, in order to promote creativity and innovation. In the context of knowledge
mastering, design creativity and innovation will be more and more applied in various design
domains – product design, material design, use design, process design, etc. – and will
contribute to create innovative concepts when “zigzaging” between the space of problems and
the space of solutions.
Many theories have been developed in the area of design creativity and innovation and
some of them focus on knowledge issues, such as TRIZ theory, for inventive design
problem resolution, thanks to knowledge patterns, available in the patents database
(Altshuller, 1999), or more recently C-K theory, a new theory for inventive design process
that connects the world of concepts with the world of knowledge (Hatchuel & Weil, 2003).
As an analogy to “Inventivity Matrixes” defined by Abraham Moles a few decades
ago, a main assumption consists of identifying the lack of knowledge, as opportunities for
potential innovations. Knowledge Management is, from our point of view, an effective
approach to identify the knowledge available in companies and also the lack of
knowledge, which can be a possible starting point for an innovation process. In order to
help the emergence of new knowledge, for inventive problem solving, various methods
and tools can be used and combined in terms of data, information, and knowledge-
solving processes, namely, Graph-based theory and Matrix-based solvers (Robert,
Vernier, Boudouh, Roth, & Gomes, 2011), Rule-based and Value-based solvers based on
Mathematical Programming and optimization (Toussaint, Lebaal, Schlegel, & Gomes,
2011), Semantical and Geometrical form features solvers (Demoly, Matsokis, & Kiritsis,
2012), etc. This perspective will open great challenges for future research.
2.3.3. Collective design creativity: the future challenge (Gavin Melles)

Design creativity has been the subject of research and discussion for three decades, with a
recent shift from individual to collective creativity having become apparent. In one of the
earliest empirical studies, Oxman (1990) described the function of prototypes, analogy, and
long- and short-term memory in producing creative design responses. More recently, Gero
(1996) has proposed a range of computer models of the creative design process and the
emergence of creative solutions. In general, the idea that problem and solution coevolve
18 Editorial board
through the design decision and creativity space is widely accepted (Dorst & Cross, 2001).
There seems, therefore, some general acceptance that something akin to tame or wicked
problem solving is characteristic of design creativity, and modeling this being an ongoing
research focus (Rittel & Webber, 1973). More recently, there has been a turn toward collective
creativity as a key phenomenon in design spaces. Shaw (2010), for example, attempts to
supplement existing individualistic cognitive accounts with collective constraints arguing that
visual thinking and media for external representation must be matched with modes of
collective emergence. Maher et al. (2010) signal the importance of “scaling up” in the move
from individual to collective creativity, noting that “crowdsourcing” networks lead to
distributed cognition and creativity, which has an openness and surprise factor that can be
modeled but not algorithmically. Saunders and Stappers (2008) identify collective creativity
through codesign as the newest space for current design work, “We use co-design in a broader
sense to refer to the creativity of designers and people not trained in design working together in
the design development process (p. 6).” Although it will be critical to maintain a broad base of
research on creativity, my particular hope is that future contributors will particularly focus on
clarifying this collective dimension of creativity, as it is both technologically and socially
mediated.
2.3.4. Pre-design stage and the social motive (Toshiharu Taura)

The conventional design process comprises the phases of conceptual design, embodiment
design, and detailed design. In order to capture the essential nature of design creativity and
innovation, we believe that it is not sufficient to merely investigate these three design
phases, but it is also necessary to look at the design stages that occur widely before and
after these three phases and the relationships among the stages. Accordingly, we would
like to call the former, the pre-design stage, and the latter, the post-design stage (Figure 7).
In the post-design stage, products are used by consumers, and on the basis of
consumer – product interactions (experience of utility or accident), consumers’ feelings,
criteria, or needs for existing and/or new products are created and stored in the
society explicitly or implicitly. These newly formed perceptions, criteria, or needs are
called the “social motive,” in contrast with the so-called motive of one person. In the pre-
design stage, the explicit or implicit social motive is identified and translated into the
explicit requirement or specification for the new products deductively (e.g., improvement
of utility or efficiency), inductively (e.g., marketing survey), or abductively (e.g., creator’s
Figure 7. Pre-design, design, and post-design.

intuition). In some cases, however, the link from the post-design stage to the design stage
(requirement or specification of the new products) is missed.
So far, the pre-design stage has been studied within the framework of idea generation,
concept generation, marketing survey, risk management, etc., whereas the post-design
stage has been studied within the framework of product usability, emotional design, user-
centered design, etc. However, these areas have been approached independently and have
not yet been systematized. In particular, little attention has been paid to the link between
the pre-design stage and the post-design stage, wherein the notion of social motive is
expected to play an important role.
Our approach toward pre-design and social motive must not only promote existing
research disciplines but also pioneer new ones that lie between the domains of systems
engineering, information technology, computer science, social science, and related fields.
Understanding the essential nature of the pre-design stage and social motive will
provide us with the method of managing extremely advanced technology with high risk
and the capability to generate extremely creative products.
2.3.5. A cognitive perspective on design creativity and innovation (Kazuhiro Ueda)

Innovation is the creation of better products, services, technologies, or ideas that are
readily available to markets, governments, and society. Creation of new values through
innovation is important and indispensable in actual business fields. In order to promote
innovation, it is considered important to foster creative human resources. In this aspect,
cognitive scientists and psychologists have a possibility of getting into innovation studies.
Actually, many psychological or cognitive science studies have investigated issues on
human creativity: what creativity is, how creativity can be measured, how people
generate new ideas, how idea generation can be enhanced, and so on. However, these
studies use a relatively easy puzzle or a word game such as anagram and riddle to
investigate the nature of creativity, suggesting that the results acquired in these studies
may lose touch with the reality and social value which creative activities in the real
world have. Against the above research trend in cognitive science and psychology,
we have investigated what type of information and human resource could enhance
creativity, focusing on activities in real business fields such as innovation, consulting, and
marketing.
Contrary to our naı̈ve understanding that ideas for innovation are generated by supply side
such as product developers, Washida (2005) suggests that ideas can be generated by
consumers, especially the group of users who behave differently from product developers
with regard to product adoption and general knowledge. Ueda, Washida, Arita, and Shimizu
(2010) conducted a series of experiments with consumers to test which is more influential in
idea generation for innovation: information, i.e., previous ideas about new uses of a product,
or individual adoption category, i.e., innovator or early adopter (Rogers, 2003). The results
suggest that information is more influential in generating creative ideas for innovation, and
early adopters, rather than innovators, make effective use of information in idea generation.
An additional experiment suggests that innovators tend to avoid communication with non-
innovators and focus more on the function and specifications of the product, potentially
decreasing their performance in creative idea generation.
In this way, cognitive perspectives and methods are considered to be made good
use of in order to clarify what good design as well as innovation could be. I expect
that this journal could foster researches on innovation and design from cognitive
perspectives.
20 Editorial board
2.4. What is creative thought?

2.4.1. Creativity is ways of thinking (Barbara Tversky)
Creativity is an attitude. For any problem encountered, how can it be solved? Is there
another way to solve it? And another way? Which way is better, and why? For any object
encountered, how could it be used? Is there another way, and another? For any social
situation encountered, how could it be interpreted? Is there another way, and another? For
the natural world, the designed world, the social world, the business world, the scientific
world, the athletic world, and the political world, why did it turn out that way? Could it
have been different? You must keep those questions to yourself, or you will drive your
friends crazy.
Creativity considers alternatives. The alternatives considered are anchored to the

starting point, the initial example. The dimensions of variability depend on the domain, on
expertise, on the mode of expressing the initial example, and more.
Creativity is content-bound. Questions about artifacts, beings, environments, social
situations, athletic situations, scientific situations, business situations, and political
situations are different because the objects and the mechanisms are different.
Creativity depends on expertise. The reasonable and relevant dimensions of variability
of ideas depend on the domain and knowledge of the domain.
Creativity is iterative. Solutions are proposed, evaluated, altered, reevaluated, and
altered again.
Creativity needs tools of thought, and the tools of thought have consequences for the
thinking. In order to alter an idea, creators need to reify the idea. Ideas can be reified in
various forms of words, gestures, sketches, models and the like, or mixtures of these. Tools
of thought abstract ideas, capturing their essences. Tools of thought give form to ideas.
The forms of expression of ideas, talk, sketch, gesture, or model encourage some kinds of
variations and discourage others. Tools of thought both enable thought and constrain
thought.
Creativity needs wisdom. We cannot question everything all the time. Knowing when
and how to invest in creativity requires wisdom.
2.4.2. Chance favors the prepared mind: design creativity, innovation and education
(Cynthia J. Atman)
In 1854, Louis Pasteur famously stated, “Chance Favors the Prepared Mind” (Pasteur,
2012). Why is this relevant to this new journal? For me this idea brings to mind valuable
questions.
Common wisdom says that what Pasteur meant is that an individual’s knowledge is the
fertile ground from which discoveries are generated, innovative solutions are produced,
and creative leaps are made. Discovery, innovation, and creative leaps are more likely to
be made by those who have a deep working knowledge about the area (or areas) they are
working in.
How can this concept help us to figure out what and how to teach future designers?
What set of skills and understandings constitutes an effectively prepared mind? What
educational experiences are helpful? Research on design processes yields useful insights.
For example, in Figure 8 see a design timeline of an expert engineering designer solving a
problem outside of their domain of expertise. Note that this expert spends a significant
amount of time framing the problem (problem scoping) prior to engaging in modeling
activities, and that information gathering takes place throughout the process (Atman et al.,
2007).
Figure 8. Timeline of verbal protocol data of engineering expert solving a design problem.
Note: PD, problem identification; GATH, information gathering; GEN, generation of ideas; MOD,
modeling; FEAS, feasibility of analysis; EVAL, evaluation; DEC, decision; COM, communication.
Why is this relevant? Potentially, if we teach students how to appropriately gather

information about a problem’s context, just like experts do, we can hope that they will
gather information that allows them to see the aspect of the problem that, when combined
with what they already know, enables the chance, the surprise, the design of a creative and
innovative solution.
So back to Pasteur, back to education, and back to my hopes for this journal. My hope
is that through the collective creativity of this community, we can start to understand each
aspect of these issues. What is a prepared mind? How does this relate to different models
of the design process (Dubberly, 2004)? Does it differ by discipline (McDonnell, 2012)?
What is the relationship between knowledge and design in various fields? Where and how
does preparation leave off and a creative leap take place? Does problem context matter
(Atman, 2009)? How can we translate the answers to these questions into ideas about
learning and teaching design?
I look forward to rich and engaging conversations as we move forward.
2.4.3. Motivation as a major direction for research into design creativity (Amaresh
Chakrabarti)
Gladwell (2008) identifies three broad influences on success (henceforth called success-
influences): ability, opportunity, and effort; while ability is essential for success,
opportunity too has a significant influence. Also crucial is the amount of effort spent into
preparing for and working toward exploiting the opportunity.
Inspired by Lewis (1981), we proposed three broad influences on design creativity
(henceforth called creativity-influences): knowledge, flexibility, and motivation (Chakra-
barti, 2006):
. Product knowledge: knowledge of the creative agent about how things occur;
. Process knowledge: knowledge of the agent using which product knowledge can be
changed;
. Motivation: factors that influence the extent of effort spent in developing and
actualizing product and process knowledge.
The “Common Definition” (Sarkar & Chakrabarti, 2011) takes design creativity as the
“ability or process for developing novel and useful ideas, solutions, or products.” Arguing
that creativity influences success, it seems that only two of the three success-influences are
addressed by the three creativity-influences. While creative ability in design comprises
knowledge of both kinds – product and process, the effort spent into developing and
22 Editorial board
actualizing this ability is influenced by both knowledge and motivation. The proposed
creativity influences do not seem to have much effect on opportunity.
The realm of design creativity research, therefore, encompasses creativity-influences
that would primarily affect two success-influences: ability and effort. The following three
points are noted:
. Both product and process knowledge and their actualization are essential for design
creativity.
. Motivation helps develop and actualize these knowledge.
. Motivation and knowledge are synergistically linked – (not) having motivation
helps (not) develop and actualize knowledge, and (not) having knowledge (de-)
motivates its (further) development and actualization.

All three creativity-influences, and their effects on one another and on design creativity,
must be investigated for understanding and supporting design creativity in-depth.
While characteristics of knowledge and its influence on creativity have been
researched in some depth, motivational factors and mutual influence of motivation and
knowledge are far less explored (Chakrabarti, 2010). The International Journal of Design
Creativity and Innovation should encourage investigating into motivational factors and
their influences on knowledge and creativity as major directions of design creativity
research.
2.4.4. The mental faculty of creativity (Joaquim Lloveras)

The production of creative ideas is perhaps one of the greatest capabilities of the human
mind, but it is a rare mental faculty and does not seem to be subject to any rules. A person
may get ideas suddenly or after a long working time; they may be produced consecutively
or be separated by long time periods; they may be born in the minds of both skilled and
unskilled individuals while performing different activities such as walking, having a
shower, sleeping, and so on. A latency period might sometimes be necessary.
“Eureka!”.... to share his discovery Archimedes that he leapt out of his bathtub and ran
through the streets of Syracuse naked... “Eureka!”, “Eureka!”... (Wikipedia, 2012).
With this background, it was natural that studies of creativity were little valued in the
scientific areas of the university. However, a few decades ago, when new ideas were
needed to promote progress and innovation in order to boost the economy of societies,
some creativity techniques appeared as an aid in the generation of ideas. These studies are
currently of great interest, also at the university.
Ideas are likely to arise from the combination of concepts in the subconscious, which
may emerge in the consciousness of the person, but the key to a better understanding of
this mental process of creativity is in neuroscience research. Psychological studies also
seek to understand the creative thinking processes operating in several factors such as the
environment and emotional or motivational mood, which may or may not boost creativity
in a person or a group. These are all current or emerging themes in scientific research.
Specifically in conceptual engineering design, it may be advantageous to use some
creativity techniques, for example, those collected by Michalko (1991) or the Theory of
Inventive Problem Solving by Altshuller (1990), both for individual or team use.
These highly topical issues and the experiences about it will have a forum in this new
magazine, which aims to promote scientific research in creative design and innovation.
Welcome!
2.4.5. Meaning of design toward the future (Yukari Nagai)

What design means to us is important. In the previous century, researchers focused on
crises, which were originally man-made (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, & Behrens,
1972). Thus, design should be perceived as a strange, uncontrollable force that must be
feared. In order to resolve the conflicting outcomes of design, a renewed theme (motive) of
design should be generated. Designing comes naturally to man (Nagai, Taura, & Mukai,
2009), but we need to examine the results of design more carefully.
A model of society from the viewpoint of creativity will require a modified meaning of
design. In this, the things that need to be discussed are (a) our affinity for designed
products, (b) the relation between designed products and society, (c) and our legacy.
(a) Pygmalion
Pygmalion, a mythological character, was a sculptor who fell in love with a statue
he created. We can imagine a deep connection between the statue and the
sculptor’s mind (inner sense). This story suggests that for all human creation, there
exists an internal motivation (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Nagai, Taura, & Sano,
2010). It also hints at the ideal relationship that develops between designer and
artifacts. The story also furthers our understanding of the “border” between
humans and products as well as the formation of an interface between the two
(Winograd & Flores, 1987).
(b) Autopoiesis
The autopoietic system (self-organization process) in nature has been compared to a
car factory, an allopoietic system (Maturana & Varela, 1980). However, from the
viewpoint of design creativity, we should now consider car factories as “autopoietic
social systems.” Researchers have paid attention to the self-organization process to
understand society from the viewpoint of system dynamics. Luhmann (1990)
suggested that the elements of our system are meanings, which form our society in
terms of a self-reference system based on communication. We should advance
society from the viewpoint of design creativity, which is a force that can change or
create meanings (e.g., concept generation); this is an underlying cognitive process
in design (Taura & Nagai, 2012).
(c) Sustainability
Wishful thinking is associated with the future. Indeed, our hopes, dreams, and
desires are replete with futuristic images. These images activate our design
motivation to create products. However, we should grow our minds (inner criteria)
toward future design, which will allow anti-production that creates our sustainable
future. For this, the development of intelligent technology (i.e., design innovation)
is required.
2.5. Design creativity for innovation

2.5.1. Four pillars of design-led innovation (Andy Dong)
Many years ago, at a lecture given by Jane Fulton Suri, Partner and Creative Director at
IDEO, to the New Product Development class I co-taught with Sara Beckman at UC
Berkeley, Fulton Suri beautifully described the ensemble of factors that determine a
design’s commercial success: human factors (e.g., user needs, desirability, and community
standards), technical factors (e.g., manufacture and assembly, reliability, durability,
and environmental impact), and financial factors (e.g., NPV, value greater than cost, and
market size). To these factors, I would add regulatory factors (e.g., product regulation and
24 Editorial board
consumer protection laws). I continue to regard these as the four pillars of design-led
innovation: human factors, technological factors, economic factors, and regulatory factors.
While I continue to teach these factors to my design students, when I speak to firms
today about their challenges with product innovation, the problem they tell me is not
necessarily about having weaknesses in any one of these factors. This may be the Apple
effect: firms now believe in the value of good design and are developing capabilities to
execute good design. One managing director in a firm in the S&P/ASX 50 Index, which
represents the “large-cap” aspect of the Australian Stock Market, informed me that they
hired an internationally respected user experience “guru” to perfect the human factors
associated with a new consumer device they were about to bring to market. They believed
that they got all of the factors right, and, yet, when they took the device to market, it
nonetheless failed. By all accounts, this company had the capabilities to execute good
design, and, in fact, practices a design-led innovation process. Upon further discussion
about their execution of design-led innovation in relation to these four factors, it became
clear to me that their problems were no longer about having depth in these factors or even
executing them. A different picture of the factors influencing the potential for the success
of design-led innovation was emerging. And it is emerging across many other firms I have
consulted with.
To understand design-led innovation, which demands success in the market, we need
much further understanding of these four pillars from the perspective of how the design of
the product or service innovation influences the execution of the innovation process. Let me
give two examples of what I mean. In human factors, we need to understand issues related to
organizational alignment with product architecture and knowledge (MacCormack,
Baldwin, & Rusnak, 2012) and organizational behavior in relation to the product concept
(Dong, Kleinsmann, & Deken, 2013). In economic factors, we need to understand how to
forecast the cost of product development and rates of potential progress according to actual
product architecture and characteristics (McNerney, Farmer, Redner, & Trancik, 2011)
rather than historical data.
Design is a systematic way of projecting a future and then implementing that future.
It is this agenda of how to operationalize the projection and implementation of the future in
alignment with the design of a new product or service that I hope contributions to this
journal will advance with fervor.
2.5.2. Design creativity for innovation (Gaetano Cascini)

According to the Oxford Dictionary, “Innovation” is “the action or process of making
changes in something established especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or
products.” In management literature, innovation is “the commercial exploitation of an
invention” and involves several stakeholders as highlighted in Cantamessa, Cascini, and
Montagna (2012).
By combining these complementary points of view, it can be postulated that Design for
Innovation implies the creation of something new, not obvious, with an expected utility
and commercial value. From this perspective, research on design creativity should cover
several complementary aspects, from the identification of emerging or even latent needs to
the proposal of inventive solutions capable of addressing current and future needs with
novel arrangements of established knowledge items, but also through the application of
new scientific discoveries. Both the identification of emerging needs and the generation of
creative answers necessarily imply as a key issue the efficiency of the overall Design
process, meant as the limited consumption of material resources and requested human
efforts. In fact, the final commercial exploitation strongly depends on cost issues.
Some of these themes are already well-established topics of research in the design
community, but are still characterized by many open questions. Others have been just
partially addressed in other research domains (e.g., management and social sciences), and
a design perspective might bring a fresh contribution useful for generating novel
knowledge in the field. Among the themes less investigated in the design literature, at least
two directions of study, in the author’s vision, deserve a specific attention.
Innovation processes can highly benefit from the multi-decade studies on Technology
Forecasting methods (Jantsch, 1967) typically applied to short-term quantitative
predictions, or to global changes at a social level.
The lessons learned so far might avoid wasting resources for the development of
useless new products and technologies. As well, forecasting methods can overcome their
multifaceted limitations and complementarities (Porter et al., 2004), also thanks to the
experiences developed within the design community, as witnessed, for example, by
Cascini (2012) and Kucharavy, De Guio, Gautier, and Marrony (2007).
While research on Technology Forecasting is expected to support the anticipation of
functionalities and features of future products as a driver for global innovation processes,
design involves also punctual tasks of analysis, synthesis, and choice. Nowadays
computers regularly support analysis and decision tasks, especially for the management of
huge data sets, for information retrieval and extraction from electronic documents corpora
[e.g., patents as in Cascini, Fantechi, & Spinicci (2004), biological literature for
Bio-Inspired design as in Chiu & Shu (2007), etc.], as well as for the identification of
hidden patterns and correlations between variables. Besides, creativity is mostly
associated with synthesis activities, and the debate is far from being exhausted about the
potential use of computers for “the creative act through integrated human – computer
cooperation during idea production” (Lubart, 2005), with opposite positions from the
refusal of any potential contribution of computers to their adoption as methodological
coaches (Becattini, Borgianni, Cascini, & Rotini, 2012) or even to foster “creative
autonomy” of modern Artificial Intelligence systems (Kyle, 2010).
As a whole, a world of intriguing research objectives and challenges to be addressed!
2.5.3. Advocating for a systemic view of innovation in company ecosystems (Bernard

Yannou)
One may and one must study design creativity and innovation from theoretical
perspectives and carefully study cognitive aspects of it within the ideation process which is
the heart of innovation process. But one must not forget realities of companies because
they are the first beneficiaries of the practical perspectives: getting effective methods in
companies to develop ever more innovative products and services.
But studying design creativity and innovation from practical perspectives for
companies is not much developed today since many barriers make it uneasy. Indeed, in a
company, there are many more influencing factors than in a controlled lab experiment,
experiments are not repeatable, company executives do not tolerate nonprofitable
experiments, designers are most of the time working on different projects at a time, and it
is hard and time-consuming to properly measure the effects of a creativity method or
innovation theory (see a recent survey in Cuisinier, Vallet, Bertoluci, Attias, & Yannou,
2012).
26 Editorial board
To do so, it requires a good understanding of the company ecosystem and its inner
processes contributing to delivered innovations (Motte, Yannou, & Bjärnemo, 2011).
Second, it requires a rigorous design research methodology so as to provide effective
design models, methods, and platforms that are truly effective in the context of the
company (Yannou & Petiot, 2011).
Working in an Industrial Engineering laboratory, I advocate a more systemic vision of
design creativity and innovation in company ecosystems (Yannou, Jankovic, & Leroy,
2011). I presently work with my team and colleagues to develop and make professional an
innovation engineering to professionalize as much as possible an innovation supply chain
in companies (see also Rianantsoa, Yannou, & Redon, 2011; Zimmer, Yannou, & Stal Le
Cardinal, 2012), i.e., to ensure a continuous production of innovations without “killing
innovation” by framing too tight, organizing too much. But one must make possible to
deliver a stream of innovations in accordance with the concerned disciplines in companies
as well as with the layers of business processes that contribute to it. We are also at the
crossing of several scientific disciplines that have their language and their methods of
observation, production, and model validation such as design engineering, industrial
engineering, strategic management of innovation projects, management of technologies,
strategic marketing, business information systems, process modeling, accounting, and
market economy.
I hope this journal can also be the place to publish these types of research works.
2.5.4. Topology optimization for supporting design creativity (Shinji Nishiwaki)

Design creativity is a vital aspect of human life because it guides the exploration of new
studies, enriches culture, and nourishes society. People have a unique ability to investigate
and discover the intricacies of how nature works, leading to insights that spur innovative
technologies. However, design creativity for each person is, in general, limited and highly
depends on the personality. Innovation research plays a crucial role in making design
creativity, encouraging the exercise of design creativity, and supporting the many
components of the design process. Some innovation methods provide deep insights into
the nature of design creativity.
Several kinds of innovation support techniques have been proposed, which aim to
assist and stimulate design creativity. However, most of these techniques do not support
from the viewpoints of mechanics and mathematics.
On the other hand, topology optimization methods (Bendsøe & Kikuchi, 1988;
Yamada, Izui, Nishiwaki, & Takezawa, 2010) are widely used in many industries,
particularly mechanical industries. The basic idea of topology optimization is the
replacement of an optimization problem with a material distribution problem. This kind of
structural optimization method is the most flexible because it allows topological changes
as well as shape changes, and it provides optimal configurations with markedly higher
performance. Figure 9 shows an example of an optimum design obtained by a topology
optimization method.
The figure shows that the optimal configuration is clear and very reasonable from the
viewpoint of mechanics, despite simple initial settings and the use of only a hexahedral
design domain. This optimization process can also be regarded as a shape design creation
process.
I believe that topology optimization methods can be used to support the process of
design creativity in human beings. Naturally, the use of a topology optimization method
does not guarantee the production of innovative designs. Truly innovative designs may
Figure 9. Optimum design obtained by a topology optimization method. (a) Design domain
settings and (b) optimal configuration.
come from integrating mechanics-based innovation support techniques, such as topology

optimization, joined with the design creativity of human beings, or the design creativity of
human beings may be assisted by innovation support techniques that integrate mechanics
and mathematics. In any event, we look forward to the stimulating role that this journal
will play in promoting progress in these endeavors.
2.6. Research methods for design creativity and innovation

2.6.1. Fundamental processes of design creativity (Ashok K. Goel)
One goal of research on design creativity is to understand its fundamental cognitive
processes. For more than two decades, my colleagues and I have been investigating four
processes: analogical thinking, systems thinking, visual thinking, and meta-thinking.
Our methodology for studying these processes combines cognitive studies, development
of information-processing models, and construction of computational techniques and
tools.
Systems thinking. We developed Structure – Behavior –Function (SBF) modeling as a
technique for analyzing technical systems. SBF modeling uses function as an abstraction
to decompose a system into subsystems and to organize knowledge of the processes and
components of a subsystem at a given level of abstraction. SBF modeling provides a set of
concepts for analyzing a system and a schema for organizing the conceptualization.
Analogical thinking. In our early work, we developed interactive case-based design
systems that provided access to digital libraries of design cases as well as autonomous
systems that used SBF models for indexing, retrieving, modifying, evaluating, and storing
design cases. Later, we developed an integrated theory of within-domain and cross-
domain analogies: Given a design problem, the technique uses the method of case-based
reasoning. If this method fails, then it tries to transfer design patterns from source cases to
target problems.
Visual thinking. We developed a technique of visual analogy that uses only visual
knowledge and reasoning to model analogical transfer in creative design. We also
developed a theory of multimodal analogy for constructing SBF models of technical
systems from their drawings: Given an unlabeled 2D target drawing of a system, our
technique constructs an SBF model of the drawing by analogy with SBF models of similar
drawings in its digital library.
28 Editorial board
Meta-thinking. We developed a technique for generating self-explanations of design

processes in autonomous design systems. We also developed a theory of self-adaptation
for adapting the design process to new tasks: Given a case-based design agent for
assembling a technical system from its components, for example, the technique adapts the
agent’s reasoning for assembly into a strategy for disassembling the system.
In this current work, we are investigating and integrating the above four processes in
the context of biologically inspired design (Goel, 2012).
2.6.2. Understanding design creativity (Yan Jin)

Research on design creativity is important and difficult. It involves design and creativity,
and both are poorly understood. On the other hand, the barrier for entering into design
creativity research seems to be low (e.g., a perspective discussion or a simple experiment
may lead to a somehow publishable paper) partly because the field is still new and the
research impact still limited.
Comparing with research on general creativity, design creativity research is more
specific and purpose driven. We want to develop better ways of design and education so
that our students can be more creative in designing their products. In the area of
engineering design, various design methods have been proposed that may help designers
generate more and potentially better ideas. Although many of these methods seem to work
in cases, the lack of detailed understanding of how the methods work limits the general
power and wider application of these methods.
One way to develop our understanding of design creativity is to investigate how
various design factors influence cognitive processes that operate on stored knowledge to
help or hinder creativity of design outcomes. This approach addresses “design factors,”
“cognitive processes,” and “knowledge” in the context of design. A better understanding
about these three design creativity ingredients and their relations provides a richer space to
develop proper design methods. Such an understanding can be especially important for
collaborative design settings, since controllable factors in case of multiple designers are
more and require proper controls.
Another way to deepen our understanding is to look into neurology details of how
humans think during design. Recent research using MRI and other technologies has
indicated interesting neuron activities of designers. An alternative way to do investigation
at the same level of detail is to create computational models or machines that can create
themselves by mimicking the nature of neurons or species. Making computers or machines
creative requires explicit modeling that provides potential for in-depth understanding of
how some of the basic mechanisms, such as randomness, association, and attractors, may
work together leading to “creative” outcomes. The insights gained can significantly help
form creative design teams, organizations, and societies.
2.6.3. Advancing the scholarship of design creativity research (Julie Linsey)

Design creativity drives innovation. Engineers, industrial designers, architects, and many
other types of designers require better tools to support and enhance their abilities.
To archive this, we must improve the research methods and metrics, discuss and define
good design research, explore and develop new design tools, and create a highly respected
scientific scholarship of design creativity research.
Much effort must be applied to develop and refine the research methods and metrics
we employ. Our approaches must be reliable and valid and provide predictive capability
for real-world situations. More work needs to be done to define, develop, and demonstrate
the effectiveness of novel research methods. We require approaches that can study a range
of phenomena from individual cognitive mechanisms to innovation within a company. We
need to be able to connect the data collected with multiple approaches ranging from highly
controlled lab experiments to long-term observational studies.
We need a design research black box measurement approach that allows data to be
collected in very realistic situations and then be connected to data from more controlled
settings. Ideally, data should be collected without influence to the process. As an analogy,
think of auto and airplane black boxes. Black boxes are highly effective tools for
connecting real-world data to controlled lab situations. Black boxes do not change the
performance, and allow real-world situations to be reconstructed. Measurement
approaches and metrics are in an infantile state. Important and critical advances have
been made, but there still is much to do. New metrics need to be developed. Even the best
available currently may have been shown to be reliable but they generally lack
demonstrated validity. Many of the current metrics influence the process when they are
collected.
Above all, we must push for robust, highly reliable, predictive, repeatable, and highly
relevant research for practicing designers. Designers need the tools to become great
innovators! Even though the research methods and metrics require advancing, we should
still continue to explore the impact of various tools for creativity and develop new ones.
This will also synergistically advance methods and metrics.
2.6.4. Investigating the nature of problem-focused creativity in design as an engine for

innovation (Kees Dorst)
The particular perspective on design creativity and innovation that I would like to
champion in the coming years, as one of the aims of the new International Journal of
Design Creativity and Innovation, is to use the careful and in-depth study of expert design
practices to develop new practices, methods, and structures for organizations to achieve
innovation.
Many organizations that have developed sophisticated problem-solving processes and
have built extensive management practices, processes, and organizational structures
around these find themselves powerless in the face of today’s radically open, complex,
dynamic, and networked problems (Stacey, Griffin, & Shaw, 2000). Somehow, their
rational problem-solving approaches are no longer serving their organization well. In the
search for new problem-solving strategies, organizations and their educational partners in
business schools have recently turned to the design professions to find solutions (“Design
Thinking”). Unfortunately, this interest in Design Thinking tends to largely focus on just
the part of design practices that deals with designers’ great ability for generating solutions.
The discussion that I would like to champion in the International Journal of Design
Creativity and Innovation is one that aims to reach much more deeply into the rich variety
of expert design practices, and in particular focuses on the way designers create new
approaches to problem situations (e.g., “Frame Creation”) (Dorst, 2011). Detailed
knowledge of these practices will allow the design research community to develop design-
based methodologies for driving innovation in organizations.
In this way, the International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation fosters
academic research and discussion in the broad fields of Design Thinking and
Entrepreneurship (reaching into Organizational and Management studies). The nature of
30 Editorial board
the research undertaken would include scholarly reflection on the theories in these
respective fields and experimental/empirical studies into their professional practices.
2.6.5. Design theory and creativity: new perspectives and convergences (Armand
Hatchuel)
During the last decades, advances in Design theory and creativity research have introduced
new possibilities for joint research. Such convergences should be emphasized as both have
long been separated scientific traditions. Design theory began with the first treatises of
architecture and was developed during the nineteenth century, in engineering, as a theory
of machine design. It was later enriched by art-based traditions that introduced new
dimensions in product development. Modern creativity research was born as a branch of

psychology in the 1950s. It aimed at measuring the variation of human creativity and
focused on the psychological mechanisms that improve or inhibit the generation of
creative ideas. The two fields grew independently. Yet, recent advances are favorable to
common approaches.
Design theory offers new models that are independent of what is designed
(universality) and, like C-K theory, can account for the generation of radically new objects
(Hatchuel & Weil, 2009). The notion of “generativity” characterizes such models of
design reasoning that are systematically “creative” (Hatchuel, Le Masson, Reich, & Weil,
2011). Creativity research has also evolved with the development of new psychological
and interpretative models, and the enrichment of experimental situations with design tasks
(Nagai et al., 2009).
Exciting opportunities are thus opened for research. Creativity research may benefit
from the modeling effort of Design theory and gain solid theoretical ground, beyond the
descriptive study of psychological phenomena (Hatchuel, Le Masson, & Weil, 2011).
Design theory could find better experimental validations and investigations in the
creativity literature. Recent research has already developed theory-driven experiments
about creative idea generation in design (Agogue, Cassotti, & Kazakci, 2011). Further
research could investigate creativity in scientific research, design routines in human
psychology, or new approaches of art creation combining design logic and psychological
models.
We hope that this new journal will attract papers exploring this new frontier.
2.6.6. Visual communication design as research enquiry (Ian Gwilt)

It is important that we see design and creative practice as a set of activities that have an
important role to play in complex, transdisciplinary research teams and research enquiry.
In doing so, we begin to recognize the potential for how design typologies can be used to
play an integrated role in the framing of research activities and the forming of research
agendas (Gwilt & Williams, 2011). In this respect, I am particularly interested in sharing
instances where the application of visual communication and information design
methodologies has been employed to explore the communicative, educational, critical,
and ethical dimensions of research enquiry (Campbell, 2012). This approach to the use of
design-based actions allows for an open-ended, inclusive set of activities that privilege the
speculative as a valuable position. Moreover, by adopting this way of thinking, the
traditional remit of design – that of solving problems – can be extended to include
question-seeking and defining activities. In particular, I am interested in innovative uses of
visual communication design in transdisciplinary research teams to formulate design-led
responses as valuable research knowledge in their own right, and to prefigure research-
based knowledge exchange and facilitate research dissemination and documentation.
2.6.7. Design creativity research: will neuro-imaging provide the answer? (Thomas
J. Howard)
A product is always designed in its own unique context. What was a great product idea
yesterday may be substandard or irrelevant tomorrow. Creativity is an essential
component of design in order to design appropriate products for each unique place and
time (Howard, Culley, & Dekoninck, 2008). But it is this uniqueness, the very thing that
makes creativity so essential, that at the same time makes it so very difficult to research.
With such a huge number of variables affecting the creative output, research in this
area must narrow down to key cognitive functions and be more scientifically rigorous
in controlling of variables. While experiments both in industry (Howard, Culley, &
Dekoninck, 2011; Howard, Dekoninck, & Culley, 2010) and with student participants
(Linsey, Wood, & Markman, 2008) have given indications as to whether proposed tools
and methods seem to work, more must be done to understand what is really occurring
during creative episodes. Cognitive psychology techniques and protocol analysis studies
have taken us so far, but the data gathered are always processed and either verbalized or
sketched by the participants. To get to the raw data behind creativity and build data sets
that are reusable (Ball, Darlington, Howard, McMahon, & Culley, 2012) and studies that
can build upon one another, neuro-imaging technology may provide the answer.
Neuro-imaging studies using fMRI have began to look at cognitive functions related to
creativity (Friis-Olivarius, Wallentin, & Vuust, 2009), with repeatable experiments that
can be verified. Furthermore, with the recent availability of mobile EEG scanners, in situ
studies also become a possibility. I believe we have much to learn from these neuroscience
and cognitive psychology studies and communities, but I also believe that they have much
to learn from us, as creativity in engineering design is richer and more varied than in any
other discipline.
3. Summary of the messages from the editorial board

Although summarizing the articles may lead to a misunderstanding of the original
intention, we will attempt to do so for helping readers get an overview of the perspectives
on design creativity and innovation research.
In Section 2.1, 10 articles were presented. All of them address the importance and
expectation of establishing the research field of design creativity and innovation; they also
outline the approaches to the new field. Chris McMahon addresses that “Creativity and
innovation in all their aspects are vital to the realization of the potential of human
ingenuity and are arguably the essence of design.” Udo Lindemann also mentions
“Research in this field is demanding,” while he highlights the necessity of a new approach
by stating that “In science, it seems that most of the empirical research is judging the
output of a ‘creative’ process and not the process itself.” John S. Gero suggests the major
future research directions as “Computational processes, cognitive dimensions, team
creativity, social creativity, and cognitive neuroscience.” Larry Leifer and Martin Steinert
express that “We are deeply concerned that this journal should be a champion of
abduction.” Ernest Edmonds points out the viewpoint of “Creative Interactive System” by
focusing on “HCI and interactive art.” Gabriela Goldschmidt touches on “Design
cognition” as “the greatest challenge for the design creativity research community” from
32 Editorial board
the standpoint of “We live life from day to day.” Linda Candy stresses on an approach
from the viewpoint of “practice” as “There is a need to develop a theoretical discipline
around the notion of practice as inherent to creativity and research as an integral part of
practice.” Mary Lou Maher points out a perspective on “computing” as “Computing has
played a significant role in advancing our understanding of design creativity by providing
formal languages for expressing models of creativity as well as providing interactive
digital environments for augmenting human creativity.” David C. Brown suggests us not
to drop in the hole of “fixation” by stating, “One might say that design creativity research
suffers from fixation.” Dorian Marjanović addresses the importance of this field as
“Human creativity, intuition and adaptation to new situations are of vital importance in
new design and product development issues on all levels from problem search up to
assembly and delivery, from very local up to global” and listed some keywords based on
previous conferences: “Conceptual design, simulation-based design, product-service
systems, innovation and design theory.”
In Section 2.2, it was pointed out that the field of design creativity and innovation
research is fundamentally different from the existing research fields owing to the
“freedom” (Yoram Reich), “flexibility” (Steven M. Smith), “complexity” (Petra Badke-
Schaub); “alterplinarity” (Paul A. Rodgers), and “complex dynamics” (Ricardo Sosa).
Accordingly, the necessity and expectation for establishing a new research field with new
methods that is beyond pure science is argued as follows: “New methods, tools, and ways
of thinking have to be invented” (Yoram Reich); “‘theory of design’ . . . is not likely to be
scientifically testable because to describe and explain the world of design, it must be
remarkably flexible” (Steven M. Smith); “Research should be synchronized between the
three perspectives of empirical investigation, theory development and application” (Petra
Badke-Schaub); “Design research . . . is not like scientific research. Design research is not
concerned with what exists but with what might be” (Paul A. Rodgers); and “The journal is
likely to stimulate the creation, implementation and testing of new methods and tools for
the evidence-based practice and education of creativity and innovation” (Ricardo Sosa).
In Section 2.3, the following viewpoints to understand design creativity and
innovation were suggested: “cultural change” (Rivka Oxman), “knowledge management”
(Samuel Gomes), “collective creativity” (Gavin Melles), “social motive” (Toshiharu
Taura), and “consumers” (Kazuhiro Ueda). Specifically, some approaches to these new
viewpoints are introduced as follows: “Digital design media have fostered theories,
concepts and models of design” (Rivka Oxman); “In order to help the emergence of new
knowledge, for inventive problem solving, various methods and tools can be used and
combined in terms of data, information and knowledge solving processes” (Samuel
Gomes); “My particular hope is that future contributors will particularly focus on
clarifying this collective dimension of creativity, as it is both technologically and socially
mediated” (Gavin Melles); “Understanding the essential nature of the Pre-Design stage
and social motive will provide us with the method of managing extremely advanced
technology with high risk and the capability to generate extremely creative products”
(Toshiharu Taura); and “Ideas can be generated by consumers, especially the group of
users who behave differently from product developers with regard to product adoption and
general knowledge” (Kazuhiro Ueda).
In Section 2.4, the characteristics of “creative thought” were addressed as follows:
“Creativity considers alternatives,” “Creativity is content-bound,” “Creativity depends on
expertise,” “Creativity is iterative,” “Creativity needs tools of thought” (Barbara Tversky);
“Chance Favors the Prepared Mind,” “Discovery, innovation, and creative leaps are more
likely to be made by those who have a deep working knowledge about the area (or areas) they
are working in” (Cynthia J. Atman); “While characteristics of knowledge and its influence on
creativity have been researched in some depth, motivational factors and mutual influence of
motivation and knowledge are far less explored” (Amaresh Chakrabarti); “The production of
creative ideas is perhaps one of the greatest capabilities of the human mind, but it is a rare
mental faculty and does not seem to be subject to any rules” (Joaquim Lloveras); and “What
design means to us is important. . . . A model of society from the viewpoint of creativity will
require a modified meaning of design” (Yukari Nagai).
In Section 2.5, the notion of “innovation” was focused on as follows: “To understand
design-led innovation, which demands success in the market, we need much further
understanding of these four pillars [human factors, technological factors, economic
factors, and regulatory factors] from the perspective of how the design of the product or
service innovation influences the execution of the innovation process” (Andy Dong);
“Research on design creativity should cover several complementary aspects, from the
identification of emerging or even latent needs, to the proposal of inventive solutions
capable of addressing current and future needs with novel arrangements of established
knowledge items, but also through the application of new scientific discoveries” (Gaetano
Cascini); “One must not forget realities of companies because they are the first
beneficiaries of the practical perspectives: getting effective methods in companies to
develop ever more innovative products and services” (Bernard Yannou); and “The design
creativity of human beings may be assisted by innovation support techniques that integrate
mechanics and mathematics” (Shinji Nishiwaki).
In Section 2.6, new research methods of design creativity and innovation were
proposed as follows: “We are investigating and integrating . . . four processes [analogical
thinking, systems thinking, visual thinking, and meta-thinking] in the context of
biologically inspired design” (Ashok K. Goel); “One way to develop our understanding of
design creativity is to investigate how various design factors influence cognitive processes
that operate on stored knowledge to help or hinder creativity of design outcomes,”
“Another way to deepen our understanding is to look into neurology details of how
humans think during design” (Yan Jin); “We must push for robust, highly reliable,
predictive, repeatable, and highly relevant research for practicing designers. Designers
need the tools to become great innovators!” (Julie Linsey); “The discussion . . . is one that
aims to reach much more deeply into the rich variety of expert design practices, and in
particular focuses on the way designers create new approaches to problem situations (e.g.,
‘Frame Creation’). Detailed knowledge of these practices will allow the design research
community to develop design-based methodologies for driving innovation in
organizations” (Kees Dorst); “Creativity research may benefit from the modeling effort
of Design theory and gain solid theoretical ground, beyond the descriptive study of
psychological phenomena” (Armand Hatchuel); “I am interested in innovative uses of
visual communication design in transdisciplinary research teams to formulate design-led
responses as valuable research knowledge” (Ian Gwilt); and “To get to the raw data behind
creativity and build data sets that are re-usable and studies that can build upon one another,
neuro-imaging technology may provide the answer” (Thomas J. Howard).
4. Visualization of the perspectives on design creativity and innovation

Usually, the boundaries of the field for each academic discipline are limited and can be
determined using well-defined keywords. However, the design creativity and innovation
discipline is very challenging; it attempts to explore a new field beyond the existing
disciplines rather than bridge a gap between them.
34
Editorial board
Figure 10. Clusters of keywords and relationships between them (use of Circos for visualization)
(Krzywinski et al., 2009).
Therefore, we should now systematize the keywords to prepare the foundations for
explaining the discipline of design creativity and innovation and understanding the outline
of its perspectives. In this attempt, we have focused on the keywords behind the expressed
keywords that are related to them (hereafter called “implicit keywords”), so that keywords
can be identified in a broad and in-depth manner.
36 Editorial board
In this trial, we attempted to find implicit keywords by using an associative concept

dictionary. The procedure of analysis consisted of the following: (1) explicit keywords
were extracted from the articles; (2) implicit keywords were identified from the explicit
keywords by using the associative concept dictionary; and (3) a cluster analysis for the
explicit keywords was conducted by calculating the relatedness of each explicit keyword
to other explicit keywords (caused by both the implicit and explicit keywords). Detailed
procedures are explained in Georgiev, Yamada, Taura, and Nagai (2012).
The results are presented in Figure 10 using circle visualization. The explicit keywords
are categorized into 13 clusters, labeled A – M. Further, the categories are ordered
according to the total quantity of relatedness in each cluster from large to small. The total
quantity of relatedness of the keywords in each cluster is represented as the length of the
outer arch (see length s in Figure 10). Additionally, the relationships between the clusters
are represented as the length of the inner arch (see length t in Figure 10) and shown as links
within the circle. For instance, clusters A and B were found to have a strong relationship
because a long inner arch in cluster A is connected with a long inner arch in cluster B. The
relatedness between the explicit keywords within each cluster is represented by a link
connected to the same cluster. The explicit keywords of each cluster are listed separately
after the circle visualization. The order of the explicit keywords (from top to bottom) is
according to the sum of relatedness to other explicit keywords within each cluster. For
instance, in cluster A, the explicit keyword with the largest sum of relatedness to other
explicit keywords is “psychology”; the next is “theory-driven experiments,” followed by
“lab experiments,” and so on. In cluster B, the explicit keyword “creative ideas” has the
largest sum of relatedness, followed by “generation of ideas,” and so on.
Acknowledgements
We extend our gratitude to the main contributors to this extended editorial – the members of the
editorial board who described their respective thoughts in each article. We believe this collection of
thoughts will help researchers, especially young researchers, comprehend the essence of design
creativity and innovation research and obtain clues for tackling the new discipline. In addition, we
express our sincere appreciation to Dr Georgi V. Georgiev and Dr Kaori Yamada for their devoted
contributions in editing this editorial, conducting the keyword analysis, and visualizing the results.
Finally, we thank Prof. Andy Dong for giving us very accurate and constructive comments.
References
Agogue, M., Cassotti, M., & Kazakci, A. (2011). The impact of examples on creative design:
explaining fixation and expansion effects. Paper presented at the 18th International Conference
on Engineering Design (ICED), 15 – 18 August 2011, Copenhagen.
Aish, R., & Woodbury, R. (2005). Multi-level interaction in parametric design. In A. Butz, B. Fisher,
A. Krüger & P. Oliver (Eds.), 5th International symposium on smart graphics, 22 – 24 August
2005, Frauenwörth Cloister (pp. 151– 162). London: Springer.
Altshuller, G. (1990). And suddenly the inventor appeared: TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem
solving. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Centre, Inc.
Altshuller, G. (1999). The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation, and technical
creativity. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center, Inc.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY: Springer.
American Psychological Association (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological
Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Atman, C. J. (2009). Surprise happens to the prepared mind: Linking context and creativity in
engineering design. Paper presented at the ACM creativity & cognition in engineering design
conference (workshop), 27 – 30 October 2009, Berkeley.
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. J. (2007).
Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of
Engineering Education, 96, 359– 379.
Badke-Schaub, P. (2007). Creativity and innovation in industrial design: Wishful thinking? Journal
of Design Research, 5, 353– 368.
Badke-Schaub, P., Lloyd, P., van der Lugt, R., & Roozenburg, N. (2005). Human-centered Design
Methodology. In H. H. Achten, K. Dorst, P. J. Stappers & B. de Vries (Eds.), Design research in
the Netherlands 2005 (pp. 23 – 32). Eindhoven: Design Systems.
Ball, A., Darlington, M., Howard, T. J., McMahon, C., & Culley, S. (2012). Visualizing research data
records for their better management. Journal of Digital Information, 13(1). Retrieved November
5, 2012, from https://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/5917/5892
Becattini, N., Borgianni, Y., Cascini, G., & Rotini, F. (2012). Model and algorithm for computer-
aided inventive problem solving. Computer-Aided Design, 44, 961– 986.
Bendsøe, M. P., & Kikuchi, N. (1988). Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a
homogenization method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics Engineering, 71, 197–224.
Boden, M. A. (1994). What is creativity? In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity
(pp. 75 – 117). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Burry, M. (2011). Scripting cultures: Architectural design and programming. West Sussex: Wiley.
Campbell, E. (2012). Design & rehabilitation project at three spinal injury centres. London: Royal
Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. Retrieved August 10,
2012, from http://www.thersa.org/projects/design/design-and-rehabilitation
Candy, L., & Costello, B. M. (Eds.). (2008). Special issue: Interaction design and creative practice.
Design Studies, 29, 521– 524.
Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. A. (2011). Interacting: art, research and the creative practitioner.
Faringdon: Libri Publishing.
Cantamessa, M., Cascini, G., & Montagna, F. (2012). Design for innovation. 12th international
design conference (DESIGN), 21 –24 May 2012, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Cascini, G. (2012). TRIZ-based anticipatory design of future products and processes. Journal of
Integrated Design & Process Science, doi: 10.3233/jid-2012-0005. Retrieved December 25,
2012, from http://iospress.metapress.com/content/h22w8103614t4085/
Cascini, G., Fantechi, A., & Spinicci, E. (2004). Natural language processing of patents and technical
documentation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3163, 508– 519.
Chakrabarti, A. (2006). Defining and supporting design creativity. Keynote in 9th international
design conference (DESIGN 2006), 15 – 18 May 2006, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Chakrabarti, A. (2010). Motivation as a major direction for design creativity research. In T. Taura &
Y. Nagai (Eds.), Design Creativity 2010. (Proceedings of the 1st International conference on
design creativity, 29 November – 1 December 2010, Kobe) (pp. 49 – 56). London: Springer.
Chiu, I., & Shu, L. H. (2007). Biomimetic design through natural language analysis to facilitate
cross-domain information retrieval. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and
Manufacturing, 21(1), 45 – 59.
Cohen, M. R. (1916). Charles S. Peirce and a tentative bibliography of his published writings. The
Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 13, 726– 737.
Coyne, R. D., Rosenman, M. A., Radford, A. D., & Gero, J. S. (1987). Innovation and creativity in
knowledge-based CAD. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Expert systems in computer-aided design
(pp. 435– 465). Amsterdam: North Holland.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Cuisinier, C., Vallet, E., Bertoluci, G., Attias, D., & Yannou, B. (2012). A renewed view of
innovation – A statement of practices and organizational models in large companies (translated
from Un nouveau regard sur l’innovation – Un état des pratiques et des modèles
organisationnels dans les grandes enterprises). Paris: Techniques de l’Ingénieur.
Demoly, F., Matsokis, A., & Kiritsis, D. (2012). A mereotopological product relationship description
approach for assembly oriented design. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing,
28(1), 681– 693.
Dong, A., Kleinsmann, M., & Deken, F. (2013). Investigating design cognition in the construction
and enactment of team mental models. Design Studies, 34(1), 1– 33.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘Design Thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32, 521–532.
38 Editorial board
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution.
Design Studies, 22, 425–437.
Dubberly, H. (2004). How do you design? A compendium of models. Dubberly Design Office.
Retrieved August 10, 2012, from http://www.dubberly.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/
ddo_designprocess.pdf
Friis-Olivarius, M. F., Wallentin, M., & Vuust, P. (2009). Improvisation – A neural foundation for
creativeness. 7th ACM conference on creativity and cognition, 27 – 30 October 2009, Berkeley.
Gardner, H. E. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creativity Research Journal,
1(1), 8– 26.
Georgiev, G. V., Yamada, K., Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (2012). A method to systematize keywords –
Explicit keywords and implicit keywords. Retrieved October 26, 2012, from http://www.lib.
kobe-u.ac.jp/handle_kernel/90001697
Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9,
435– 448.
Gero, J. S. (2000). Computational models of innovative and creative design processes.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 64, 183– 196.
Gero, J. S. (2011). A situated cognition view of innovation with implications for innovation policy.
In K. Husbands-Fealing, J. Lane, J. Marburger, S. Shipp & B. Valdez (Eds.), The science of
science policy: A handbook (pp. 104– 119). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2009). Understanding innovation as a change of value systems. In
R. Tan, G. Gao & N. Leon (Eds.), Growth and development of computer-aided innovation
(pp. 249– 257). London: Springer.
Gero, J. S., & Maher, M. L. (Eds.). (1993). Modeling creativity and knowledge-based creative
design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gilbert, N. (2010). Computational social science. Four-Volume Set. London: Sage.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. London: Allen Lane.
Goel, A. (2012). Analogical thinking, systems thinking, visual thinking and meta thinking: Four
fundamental processes of design creativity. Paper presented to the Design Society’s Design
Creativity Workshop at 5th international conference on design computing and cognition (DCC),
6 June 2012, Texas. Retrieved from http://inspire.usc.edu/dcw12/index.php/Program/
AcceptedPapers
Goldschmidt, G. (forthcoming). Linkography: Unfolding the design process. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Gomez, A., & Gero, J. S. (2010). Elementary social interactions and their effects on creativity:
A computational simulation. In D. Ventura, A. Pease, R. Pérez y Pérez, G. Ritchie & T. Veale
(Eds.), International conference on computational creativity (pp. 110– 119). Lisbon: University
of Coimbra.
Gramazio, F., & Kohler, M. (2008). Digital materiality in architecture. Zurich: Lars Müller
Publishers.
Gu, N., & Maher, M. L. (2004). A grammar for the dynamic design of virtual architecture using
rational agents. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 4(1), 489– 501.
Gul, L. F., & Maher, M. L. (2009). Co-creating external design representations: Comparing face-to-
face sketching to designing in virtual environments. CoDesign International Journal of
CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 2, 117– 138.
Gwilt, I., & Williams, J. (2011). Framing futures for visual communication design research. Design
Principles and Practice, 5, 81 – 95. Retrieved August, 10, 2012, from http://ijg.cgpublisher.com/
product/pub.154/prod.706
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2003). A new approach of innovative design: An introduction to C-K
theory. 14th international conference on engineering design (ICED), 19 – 21 August 2003,
Stockholm.
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K Design theory: An advanced formulation. Research in
Engineering Design, 19, 181– 192.
Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., Reich, Y., & Weil, B. (2011). A systematic approach of design theories
using generativeness and robustness. 18th International conference on engineering design
(ICED), 15 – 18 August 2011, Copenhagen.
Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2011). Teaching innovative design reasoning: How C-K
theory can help to overcome fixation effect. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,
Analysis and Manufacturing, 25(1), 77 – 92.
Hernandez, N. V., Shah, J. J., & Smith, S. M. (2010). Understanding design ideation mechanisms
through multilevel aligned empirical studies. Design Studies, 31, 382– 410.
Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. A. (2008). Describing the creative design process by
the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29,
160– 180.
Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. A. (2011). Reuse of ideas and concepts for creative
stimuli in engineering design. Journal of Engineering Design, 22, 565– 581.
Howard, T. J., Dekoninck, E. A., & Culley, S. J. (2010). The use of creative stimuli at early stages of
industrial product innovation. Research in Engineering Design, 21, 263– 274.
Jantsch, E. (1967). Technological forecasting in perspective. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
Josephson, J. R., & Josephson, S. G. (1996). Abductive inference: Computation, philosophy,
technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, M. J., & Maher, M. L. (2005). Creative design and spatial cognition in a tangible user interface
environment. In J. S. Gero & M. L. Maher (Eds.), Computational and cognitive models of
creative design VI (pp. 233– 250). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney.
Krippendorff, K. (2007). Design research, an oxymoron? In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now:
Essays and selected projects (pp. 67 –80). Zürich: Birkhäuser Verlag.
Krzywinski, M., Schein, J., Birol, I., Connors, J., Gascoyne, R., Horsman, D., . . . , Marra, M. (2009).
Circos: An information aesthetic for comparative genomics. Genome Research, 19, 1639 –1645.
Kucharavy, D., De Guio, R., Gautier, L., & Marrony, M. (2007). Problem mapping for the
assessment of technological barriers in the framework of innovative design. 16th international
conference on engineering design (ICED), 28 – 31 August 2007, Ecole Centrale Paris: Paris,
France.
Kuutti, K. (2007). Design research, disciplines, and new production of knowledge. 2nd international
association of societies of design research (IASDR), 12– 15 November 2007, Hong Kong.
Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://www.sd.polyu.edu.hk/iasdr/proceeding/papers/Design%
20Research%20Disciplines%20and%20New%20Production%20of%20Knowledge.pdf
Kyle, J. (2010). Developing creativity: Artificial barriers in artificial intelligence. Minds and
Machines, 20, 489– 501.
Lawson, B. R. (2002). Design as research. Architectural Research Quarterly, 6, 109– 114.
Lewis, D. (1981). You can teach your child intelligence. London: Souvenir Press.
Linsey, J. S., Wood, K. L., & Markman, A. B. (2008). Increasing innovation: Presentation and
evaluation of the Wordtree Design-by-Analogy Method. Proceedings of ASME 2008
International Design Engineering Technical Conference and Computers and Information in
Engineering Conference, 3– 6 August, New York, DETC2008-49317.
Lubart, T. (2005). How can computers be partners in the creative process: Classification and
commentary on the special issue. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63,
365– 369.
Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
MacCormack, A., Baldwin, C., & Rusnak, J. (2012). Exploring the duality between product and
organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring” hypothesis. Research Policy, 41(8),
1309– 1324.
Maher, M. L. (2012). Computational and collective creativity: Who’s being creative? In M. L.
Maher, K. Hammond, A. Pease, R. Pérez y Pérez, D. Ventura & G. Wiggins (Eds.), 3rd
international conference on computational creativity, 30 May – 1 June 2012, Dublin, Ireland,
University College Dublin.
Maher, M. L., & Fisher, D. H. (2012). Using AI to evaluate creative designs. 2nd International
conference on design creativity (ICDC), 17 – 19 September 2012, Glasgow, UK.
Maher, M. L., Paulini, M., & Murty, P. (2010). Scaling up: From individual design to collaborative
design to collective design. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), 4th international conference on design computing
and cognition (DCC), 12 –14 July 2010 (pp. 581–600). Stuttgart, Germany: Springer.
Maher, M. L., & Tang, H. (2003). Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design.
Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 47 – 64.
Marjanović, D. (2012). Introduction. In D. Marjanović, M. Storga, N. Pavkovic & N. Bojcetic (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 12th international design conference DESIGN 2012, 21 – 24 May 2012,
Dubrovnik, Croatia.
40 Editorial board
Marjanović, D., Storga, M., Pavkovic, N., & Bojcetic, N. (Eds.). (2012). Proceedings of the 12th
international design conference DESIGN 2012, 21 – 22 May 2012 Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Marshall, J., & Bleecker, J. (2010). Undisciplinarity. In P. A. Rodgers & M. Smyth (Eds.), Digital
blur: Creative practice at the boundaries of architecture, design and art (pp. 216– 223). Oxon:
Libri Publishing.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living.
Boston, MA: D Reidel Publishing Co.
McDonnell, J. (2012). Impositions of order: A comparison between design and fine art practices.
Design Studies, 32, 557–572.
McNerney, J., Farmer, J. D., Redner, S., & Trancik, J. E. (2011). Role of design complexity in
technology improvement. National Academy of Sciences, 108, 9008–9013.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. New
York, NY: Universe Books.
Michalko, M. (1991). Thinkertoy, a hand book of business creativity for the 90s. Berkeley, CA: Ten
Speed Press.
Motte, D., Yannou, B., & Bjärnemo, R. (2011). The specificities of radical innovation. 3rd
international conference on research into design (ICoRD), 10 – 12 January 2011, Bangalore,
India.
Nagai, Y., Taura, T., & Mukai, F. (2009). Concept blending and dissimilarity: Factors for creative
concept generation process. Design Studies, 30, 648– 675.
Nagai, Y., Taura, T., & Sano, K. (2010). Research methodology for internal observation of the
design process through the creative self-reinvestigation process. In T. Taura & Y. Nagai (Eds.),
Design creativity 2010 (Proceedings of 1st international conference on design creativity),
29 November– 1 December 2010, Kobe, Japan. London: Springer.
Norman, D. (2005). Act first, do the research later. Retrieved August, 10, 2012, from http://www.
core77.com/blog/columns/act_first_do_the_research_later_20051.asp
Oxman, R. (1990). Prior knowledge in design: A dynamic knowledge-based model of design and
creativity. Design Studies, 11(1), 17 – 28.
Oxman, R. (2006). Theory and design in the first digital age. Design Studies, 27, 229– 265.
Oxman, R. (2012). Informed tectonics in material-based design. Design Studies, 33, 427– 455.
Oxman, R., & Oxman, R. (Eds.). (2010). The new structuralism: Design, engineering and
architectural technologies (architectural design). London: Wiley.
Pasteur, L. (2012). Retrieved July 31, 2012, from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur
Peirce, C. S. (1940). Abduction and induction. In J. Buchler (Ed.), The philosophy of Pierce:
Selected writings (pp. 150– 156). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (republished as (1955)
Philosophical writings of Pierce. New York, NY: Dover Publications).
Peirce, C. S. (1958a [1903a]). Lowell Lectures, CP 5.590.Some topics of logic bearing on questions
now vexed. In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss & A. W. Burks (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles
Sanders Peirce: Science and philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1958b [1903b]). A syllabus of certain topics of logic, EP 2.299.The essential Peirce.
Selected philosophical writings. In N. Houser, C. Kloesel & Peirce Edition Project (Eds.),
Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce: Science and philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Poole, D. (1990). A methodology for using a default and abductive reasoning system. International
Journal of Intelligent Systems, 5, 521– 548.
Porter, A. L., Ashton, W. B., Clar, G., Coates, J. F., Cuhls, K., Cunningham, S. W., . . . , Thissen, W.
(Technology Futures Analysis Methods Working Group) (2004). Technology futures analysis:
Toward integration of the field and new methods. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 71, 287– 303.
Reich, Y. (2008). The principle of reflexive practice. Invited talk presented at the 6th International
seminar and workshop on engineering design in integrated product development, EDIProD
‘2008’, September 2008, Gdynia, Poland.
Reich, Y. (2010). My method is better! (Editorial). Research in Engineering Design, 21, 137–142.
Rianantsoa, N., Yannou, B., & Redon, R. (2011). Steering the value creation in an airplane design
project from the business strategies to the architectural concepts. 18th international conference
on engineering design (ICED), 15 – 18 August 2011, Copenhagen.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sciences, 4, 155– 169.
Robert, A., Vernier, C., Boudouh, T., Roth, S., & Gomes, S. (2011). Towards a high productive
design methodology dedicated to modular products design using a knowledge configuration
approach. International conference on innovative methods in product design (IMProVe), 15 – 17
June 2011, Venice.
Rodgers, P. A., & Bremner, C. (2011). Alterplinarity-‘Alternative Disciplinarity’ in future art and
design research pursuits. Studies in Material Thinking, 6, ISSN 1177 –6234.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity: Measures of novelty, usefulness
and design creativity. Design Studies, 32, 348– 383.
Saunders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4
(1), 5– 18.
Saunders, R., & Gero, J. S. (2002). How to study artificial creativity. In T. Hewett & T. Kavanagh
(Eds.), 4th ACM conference on creativity and cognition, 13 – 16 October 2002, Loughborough
(pp. 80 – 87). New York, NY: ACM Press.

Scheurer, F. (2010). Materializing complexity. In R. E. Oxman & R. M. Oxman (Eds.), The new
structuralism: Design, engineering and architectural technologies, (architectural design)
(pp. 86 – 93). London: Wiley.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Seymour, R. (2006). Heads or tails. Design Week, 21, 19.
Shah, J. J., Vargas-Hernandez, N., & Smith, S. M. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation
effectiveness. Design Studies, 24, 111– 134.
Shaw, B. G. (2010). A cognitive account of collective emergence in design. CoDesign, 6, 225–243.
Smith, G. F. (1998). Idea-generation techniques: A formulary of active ingredients. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 32, 107– 133.
Sosa, R., & Gero, J. S. (2005). A computational study of creativity in design: The role of society.
Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing AIEDAM, 19,
229– 244.
Sosa, R., & Gero, J. S. (2008a). Creative social systems. In D. Ventura, M. L. Maher & S. Colton
(Eds.), Creative intelligent systems, AAAI Spring Symposium, 26 – 28 March 2008 (pp. 90 – 94).
Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.
Sosa, R., & Gero, J. S. (2008b). Social structures that promote change in a complex world: The
complementary roles of strangers and acquaintances in innovation. FUTURES, The Journal of
Policy, Planning and Futures Studies, 40, 577– 585.
Sosa, R., & Gero, J. S. (2012). Brainstorming in solitude and teams: A computational study of the
role of group influence. In M. L. Maher, K. Hammond, A. Pease, R. Pérez y Pérez, D. Ventura &
G. Wiggins (Eds.), 3rd international conference on computational creativity, 30 May – 1 June
2012 (pp. 188– 194). Dublin, Ireland.
Sosa, R., Gero, J. S., & Jennings, K. (2009). Growing and destroying the worth of ideas. 7th ACM
conference on creativity and cognition, 27 – 30 October 2009, Berkeley.
Souder, W. E. (1987). Managing new product innovations. Lexington: Lexington Books.
Stacey, R., Griffin, D., & Shaw, P. (2000). Complexity and management – Fad or radical challenge
to systems thinking? London: Routledge.
Steinert, M., & Leifer, L. (2012). ‘Finding one’s way’: Re-discovering a hunter-gatherer model
based on wayfaring. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(1), 1 –2.
Stewart, M. (2008). Launching the imagination: A comprehensive guide to basic design (3rd ed.,
pp. 116– 125). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Sullivan, G. (2010). Art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Suwa, M., Gero, J. S., & Purcell, T. (2000). Unexpected discoveries and s-inventions of design
requirements: Important vehicles for a design process. Design Studies, 21, 539– 567.
Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (Eds.). (2010). Design creativity 2010. (Proceedings of the 1st international
conference on design creativity), 29 November–1 December 2010, Kobe, Japan. London:
Springer.
Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (2012). Concept generation for design creativity: A systematized theory and
methodology. London: Springer-Verlag.
Thagard, P., & Shelley, C. P. (1997). Abductive reasoning: Logic, visual thinking, and coherence. In
M. L. Dalla Chiara, K. Dorst, D. Mundici & J. van Benthem (Eds.), Logic and scientific methods
(pp. 413– 427). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
42 Editorial board
Toussaint, L., Lebaal, N., Schlegel, D., & Gomes, S. (2011). Automatic optimization of air conduct
design using experimental data and numerical results. International Journal for Simulation and
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization, 4, 77 – 83.
Ueda, K., Washida, Y., Arita, A., & Shimizu, T. (2010). The important role of information and
cognitive features in idea generation for innovation. Cognitive Studies, 17, 611–634,
(in Japanese).
Washida, Y. (2005). Collaborative structure between Japanese high-tech manufacturers and
consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22, 25 – 34.
West, D. (2007). A new generation. Icon, 43, 56 – 64.
Wikipedia (2012). Eureka. Retrieved July 30, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_
(word)
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for
design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Yamada, T., Izui, K., Nishiwaki, S., & Takezawa, A. (2010). A topology optimization method based
on the level set method incorporating fictitious interface energy. Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics Engineering, 199, 2876– 2891.
Yannou, B., Jankovic, M., & Leroy, Y. (2011). Empirical verifications of some radical innovation
design principles onto the quality of innovative designs. 18th international conference on
engineering design (ICED), 15 – 18 August 2011, Copenhagen.
Yannou, B., & Petiot, J.-F. (2011). A view of design (and JMD): The French perspective. Journal of
Mechanical Design, 133(5), 050301-1–050301-2.
Zimmer, B., Yannou, B., & Stal Le Cardinal, J. (2012). Proposal of radical innovation project
selection model based on proofs of value, innovation and concept. In D. Marjanović, M. Storga,
N. Pavkovic & N. Bojcetic (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international design conference
DESIGN 2012, 21 – 24 May 2012, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Editors:
Toshiharu Taura
Kobe University, Japan
Yukari Nagai
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology, Japan
View publication stats

Principios de Economia 6ta Edicion Mankiw

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Principios de Economia 6ta Edicion Mankiw

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

Perspectives on design creativity and

Article · January 2013

Sustainability and Development at the MSc level in the UK View project

PhD research and education in design in Germany View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Design

Perspectives on design creativity and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.754657

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation

(Received 19 October 2012; final version received 28 November 2012)

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

Gabriela Goldschmidt (Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Israel), Linda Candy

2. Messages from the editorial board

an intensely competitive world where economic prosperity depends on translating ingenuity

of creativity and innovation and how to characterize them to an in-depth understanding of

2.1.3. Design creativity research: where to from here? (John S. Gero)

cognitive and computational dimensions.

2.1.5. Creative interactive system design (Ernest Edmonds)

2.1.7. A practitioner perspective on creativity and innovation research (Linda Candy)

2.1.9. Breaking old habits (David C. Brown)

2.1.10. Perspectives on design creativity and innovation research (Dorian Marjanović)

Figure 2. Clouds of interrelated keywords in research papers on DESIGN conferences during

2.2. New research paradigm beyond pure science

2.2.2. Design creativity: a theoretical and empirical science (Steven M. Smith)

Figure 5. The creative process as driver of innovation.

Empirical Theoretical Applied

Definition of relevant Development, inte- Implementation,

2.2.4. My perspectives on design creativity and innovation research (Paul A. Rodgers)

2.2.5. Computational social laboratories to understand creativity and innovation

2.3. Context of design creativity and innovation

technological transformation is currently occurring in the relationship between digital

2.3.3. Collective design creativity: the future challenge (Gavin Melles)

2.3.4. Pre-design stage and the social motive (Toshiharu Taura)

Figure 7. Pre-design, design, and post-design.

2.3.5. A cognitive perspective on design creativity and innovation (Kazuhiro Ueda)

2.4. What is creative thought?

Creativity considers alternatives. The alternatives considered are anchored to the

Why is this relevant? Potentially, if we teach students how to appropriately gather

motivates its (further) development and actualization.

2.4.4. The mental faculty of creativity (Joaquim Lloveras)

2.4.5. Meaning of design toward the future (Yukari Nagai)

2.5. Design creativity for innovation

2.5.2. Design creativity for innovation (Gaetano Cascini)

2.5.3. Advocating for a systemic view of innovation in company ecosystems (Bernard

2.5.4. Topology optimization for supporting design creativity (Shinji Nishiwaki)

come from integrating mechanics-based innovation support techniques, such as topology

2.6. Research methods for design creativity and innovation

Meta-thinking. We developed a technique for generating self-explanations of design

2.6.2. Understanding design creativity (Yan Jin)

2.6.3. Advancing the scholarship of design creativity research (Julie Linsey)

2.6.4. Investigating the nature of problem-focused creativity in design as an engine for

dimensions in product development. Modern creativity research was born as a branch of

2.6.6. Visual communication design as research enquiry (Ian Gwilt)

3. Summary of the messages from the editorial board

4. Visualization of the perspectives on design creativity and innovation

In this trial, we attempted to find implicit keywords by using an associative concept

(pp. 80 – 87). New York, NY: ACM Press.

View publication stats

You might also like