A Theory-Driven Design Research Agenda: Exploring Dual-Process Theory

Abstract

Design research faces a critical 'impact gap' where the potential for scientific and practical impact is yet to be fully realised. A key means of bridging this gap is the adoption of fundamental theory from other fields to support clarification and synergy in design research. In this paper we examine one of the main candidates for adoption: dual-process theory of cognition. Cognition forms a common element across much of the design literature and leads to fundamental dual-process theories of reasoning. While dual- process theory has started to be recognised in design research, its widespread recognition and potential utility have not been widely explored. Following a conceptual theory development approach we identify and logically describe interactions between dual-process theory and design research. We conclude the paper with a proposition of a design research framework with a core rooted in dual-process theory, and based on this, an agenda for theory-driven design research. This contributes to the debate on how to improve impact, and theoretical and scientific rigour in design research, and provides a concrete agenda for discussion and development within the community.

Understanding representation: Contrasting gesture and sketching in design through dual-process theory

“…First, this work demonstrates how an interplay between intuitive Type 1 and reflective Type 2 processing can explain a number of design representation results across a range of design tasks. By testing specific predictions, we substantially extend the debate regarding the potential applicability of dual-process theory in the design context Cash, Daalhuizen, et al, 2019;), and provide another example of dual-process theory's predictive power in practice (Evans & Stanovich, 2013).…”

“…Following recent discussions of future directions in design cognition Cash, Daalhuizen, et al, 2019) and uncertainty Cash & Kreye, 2017), as well as applied studies of creativity (Beaty et al, 2018;Kleinmintz, Ivancovsky, & Shamay-Tsoory, 2019) and design methodology (Daalhuizen, 2014), we come to a focus on dual-process theory (Evans & Stanovich, 2013;Stanovich, 2009). While dual-process theory is broadly accepted in cognitive psychology it is yet to be widely operationalised in design research Kannengiesser & Gero, 2019).…”

“…Before discussing the implications there are two main limitations to be considered. First, while dual-process theory is relatively mature (Evans, 2008), its application to design is very limited Cash, Daalhuizen, et al, 2019), and questions remain about its exact mechanisms. This means that there are a number of questions requiring further study regarding how exactly to operationalise dual-process hypotheses and measures relevant to design research.…”

“…Der Lugt (2005) examine a single mode across design tasks, while Linsey et al (2011) and Eris et al (2014) examine multiple modes in specific tasks. Despite this, numerous authors highlight the potential for developing more general explanative and predictive power through the operationalisation of cognitive theory Cash, Daalhuizen, Valgeirsdottir, & Van Oorschot, 2019;. Thus, we aim to provide a more general account of design representation by operationalising and testing predictions grounded in generic cognitive theory.…”

A new method for training creativity: narrative as an alternative to divergent thinking

“…To grant narrative cognition a role in creativity is also to address the recent experimental finding that training in divergent thinking can boost aptitude at divergent thinking without leading to downstream improvements in problem solving or innovation 31,92,100,105,218–222 . This finding is congruent with the discovery that computer AI can scale divergent thinking without scaling problem solving or innovation, and it potentially undercuts the value of current creativity training by inviting the charge that the training is a circular activity that produces measurable improvements in an inapplicable skill.…”