Journals / A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2

Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness

Pages
243–262
Publication Date
2022-11-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The strategies are discussed in terms of content creation, problem exploration and idea generation as functions of design reasoning, and in reference to divergence, convergence, quantity, situatedness, and goal-orientedness, as indicators of effectiveness.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The Controlled Input Method is a brainstorming technique that adopts both a nominal and an interactive approach, which has been indicated in the literature as making creative group discussion sessions effective.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The analyses revealed seven discussion topics on the problem area, three solution areas gathering design ideas, seven statement types used in the documentation, and two problem frames situating the discussions, contributing to the identification of fifteen strategies used in collective design reasoning.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The strategies are discussed in terms of content creation, problem exploration and idea generation as functions of design reasoning, and in reference to divergence, convergence, quantity, situatedness, and goal-orientedness, as indicators of effectiveness.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The Controlled Input Method is a brainstorming technique that adopts both a nominal and an interactive approach, which has been indicated in the literature as making creative group discussion sessions effective. A brainstorming session using the Controlled Input Method was carried out as the initial stage of the design process of a graduate-level design project in an educational setting. The brainstorming session was found effective in terms of productivity. The documentation of the session was qualitatively and quantitatively analysed for identifying the factors contributing to the session’s effectiveness. The analyses revealed seven discussion topics on the problem area, three solution areas gathering design ideas, seven statement types used in the documentation, and two problem frames situating the discussions, contributing to the identification of fifteen strategies used in collective design reasoning. The strategies are discussed in terms of content creation, problem exploration and idea generation as functions of design reasoning, and in reference to divergence, convergence, quantity, situatedness, and goal-orientedness, as indicators of effectiveness.

🔖

Cite This Article

BÖREKÇİ, N. A. (2022). Collective design reasoning strategies used in a creative group discussion session for effectiveness. A|Z ITU Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 2, 243–262. https://ajindex.com/articles/655752

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. J. (2019). The Double Diamond: A universally accepted depiction of the design process. Design Council UK, News & Opinion. Retrieved on December 2020 from: www.designcouncil. org.uk/news-opinion/double- diamond-universally-accepted-depiction- design-process Björklund, T.A. (2013). Initial mental representations of design problems: Differences between experts and novices. Design Studies, 34(2), 135-160.
  2. Bonnardel, N., & Didier, J. (2020). Brainstorming variants to favor creative design. Applied Ergonomics, 83(2020) 102987. Brereton, M., Cannon, D., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (1996). Collaboration in Design Teams: How Social Interaction Shapes the Product. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans & K. Dorst (Eds.) Analysing Design Activity (pp. 319-341). Chichester: Wiley. Carroll, M., Cavagnaro, L.B., & Goldman, S. (2012). Design Thinking. In S. Garner & C. Evans (Eds.) Design and Designing: A Critical Introduction (pp. 20-31). London: Berg. Cramer-Petersen, C.L., & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2016). Argumentation and reasoning in design: An empirical analysis of the effects of verbal reasoning on idea value in group idea generation. In: Proceedings of International Design Conference Design 2016 (pp. 957-966). 16-19 May 2016,
  3. Dubrovnik, Croatia. Cross, N. (2011). Design Thinking. Oxford: Berg. Cross, N., & Clayburn Cross, A. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16(2), 143-170.
  4. Daalhuizen, J., Person, O., & Gattol, V. (2014). A personal matter? An investigation of students’ design process experiences when using a heuristic or a systematic method. Design Studies, 35(2), 133-159.
  5. Darke, J. (1984). The Primary Generator and the Design Process. In N. Cross (Ed.) Developments in Design Methodology (pp. 175-188). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Denis, A.R., & Valacich, J.S. (1993). Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 531-537.
  6. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392-403.
  7. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497-509.
  8. Dong, A. (2005). The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication. Design Studies, 26(5), 445-461.
  9. Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532. Dorst,