Predicting a Paradigm Shift: Exploring the Relationship Between Cognitive Style and the Paradigm-Relatedness of Design Solutions

C. Cole, Jacqueline Marhefka, K. Jablokow, S. Mohammed, Sarah C. Ritter, Scarlett R. Miller
{"title":"Predicting a Paradigm Shift: Exploring the Relationship Between Cognitive Style and the Paradigm-Relatedness of Design Solutions","authors":"C. Cole, Jacqueline Marhefka, K. Jablokow, S. Mohammed, Sarah C. Ritter, Scarlett R. Miller","doi":"10.1115/detc2021-70909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Nearly 60 years ago, Thomas Kuhn revolutionized how we think of scientific discovery and innovation when he identified that scientific change can occur in incremental developments that improve upon existing solutions, or it can occur as drastic change in the form of a paradigm shift. In engineering design, both types of scientific change are critical when exploring the solution space. However, most methods of examining design outputs look at whether an idea is creative or not and not the type of creativity that is deployed or if we can predict what types of individuals or teams is more likely to develop a paradigm-shifting idea. Without knowing how to identify who will generate ideas that fit a certain paradigm, we do not know how to build teams that can develop ideas that better explore the solution space. This study provides the first attempt at answering this question through an empirical study with 60 engineering design student teams over the course of a 4- and 8-week design project. Specifically, we sought to identify the role of cognitive style using KAI score, derived from Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory, on the paradigm-relatedness of ideas generated by individuals and teams. We also sought to investigate the role of crowdsourcing for measuring the paradigm-relatedness of design solutions. The results showed that KAI was positively related to a greater likelihood of an individual’s idea being categorized as paradigm-breaking. In addition, the team KAI diversity was also linked to a greater likelihood of teams’ ideas being categorized as paradigm-challenging. Finally, the results support the use of crowdsourcing for measuring the paradigm-relatedness of design solutions.","PeriodicalId":261968,"journal":{"name":"Volume 6: 33rd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (DTM)","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 6: 33rd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology (DTM)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2021-70909","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Nearly 60 years ago, Thomas Kuhn revolutionized how we think of scientific discovery and innovation when he identified that scientific change can occur in incremental developments that improve upon existing solutions, or it can occur as drastic change in the form of a paradigm shift. In engineering design, both types of scientific change are critical when exploring the solution space. However, most methods of examining design outputs look at whether an idea is creative or not and not the type of creativity that is deployed or if we can predict what types of individuals or teams is more likely to develop a paradigm-shifting idea. Without knowing how to identify who will generate ideas that fit a certain paradigm, we do not know how to build teams that can develop ideas that better explore the solution space. This study provides the first attempt at answering this question through an empirical study with 60 engineering design student teams over the course of a 4- and 8-week design project. Specifically, we sought to identify the role of cognitive style using KAI score, derived from Kirton’s Adaption-Innovation (A-I) theory, on the paradigm-relatedness of ideas generated by individuals and teams. We also sought to investigate the role of crowdsourcing for measuring the paradigm-relatedness of design solutions. The results showed that KAI was positively related to a greater likelihood of an individual’s idea being categorized as paradigm-breaking. In addition, the team KAI diversity was also linked to a greater likelihood of teams’ ideas being categorized as paradigm-challenging. Finally, the results support the use of crowdsourcing for measuring the paradigm-relatedness of design solutions.
预测范式转换:探索设计方案的认知风格与范式相关性之间的关系
近60年前,托马斯·库恩(Thomas Kuhn)彻底改变了我们对科学发现和创新的看法,他发现科学变化可以发生在对现有解决方案进行改进的渐进式发展中,也可以以范式转变的形式发生剧烈变化。在工程设计中,当探索解决方案空间时,这两种类型的科学变化都是至关重要的。然而,大多数检查设计输出的方法都着眼于一个想法是否具有创造性,而不是部署的创造力类型,或者我们是否可以预测哪种类型的个人或团队更有可能开发出范式转换的想法。如果不知道如何确定谁将产生适合某个范例的想法,我们就不知道如何建立能够开发更好地探索解决方案空间的想法的团队。本研究通过对60个工程设计学生团队进行为期4周和8周的设计项目的实证研究,首次尝试回答这个问题。具体来说,我们试图通过KAI评分来确定认知风格的作用,该评分源自Kirton的适应-创新(A-I)理论,涉及个人和团队产生的想法的范式相关性。我们还试图调查众包在衡量设计解决方案的范式相关性方面的作用。结果表明,KAI与个体的想法被归类为打破范式的可能性呈正相关。此外,团队KAI多样性也与团队的想法被归类为范式挑战的可能性更大有关。最后,结果支持使用众包来衡量设计解决方案的范例相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信