Co-author network analysis of human-centered design for development

Abstract

Human-centered design (HCD) offers a systematic approach to innovation practice, driven by customer research and feedback throughout the design process. Within the community of engineers and researchers who engage in design for global development, interest in HCD has grown in the past decade. In this paper, we examine the human-centered design for development (HCD+D) academic community to better understand the interactions between researchers. By building and evaluating a co-authorship network from a dataset of HCD+D papers, in which the nodes are researchers and the connecting links are co-authorship relationships, we provide a decade-long benchmark to answer a variety of questions about collaboration patterns within this emerging field. Our analysis shows that most HCD+D authors publish few papers and are part of small, well-connected sub-communities. Influential authors that bridge separate communities are few. HCD+D is emerging from disparate disciplines and widely shared scholarship across disciplines continues to be developed. Influential authors in HCD+D play a large role in shaping HCD+D, yet there are few authors that are in a position to connect and influence collaborative research. Our analysis gives rise to several implications including an increased need for cross-disciplinary collaboration and the need for a stronger core of HCD+D practitioners.

Framing the microfoundations of design thinking as a dynamic capability for innovation: Reconciling theory and practice

“…They allow exchanging and refining ideas, including different perspectives, and identifying new problems to be solved (Micheli et al, 2012; Snyder et al, 2018). Specifically, the DT process for the creation of novel options (i.e., designing new features, solving user needs) is at the core of the debate (Giacomin, 2014; Li et al, 2018). Novel options are usually linked to the backward‐looking concept (Eppler & Kernbach, 2016; Noble & Kumar, 2010), grounding the entire decision‐making process in researching past knowledge and performance that is measurable (Bas & Guillo, 2015).…”

“…Novel options are usually linked to the backward‐looking concept (Eppler & Kernbach, 2016; Noble & Kumar, 2010), grounding the entire decision‐making process in researching past knowledge and performance that is measurable (Bas & Guillo, 2015). Relatedly, several studies find that some firms look at DT as a method to generate creatively innovations (Li et al, 2018; Smith et al, 2012), also with a focus on resolving longstanding user needs that have never been observed by organizations and that DT can help unveil (Paton & Dorst, 2011).…”

“…Managers can make the most of DT only by understanding that a structure that supports collective actions and interactions builds an organization, and ultimately, a team able to address innovation problems by sensing relevant opportunities (Chen & Venkatesh, 2013; De Mozota, 2008; McFadzean, 1998). For instance, establishing creative confidence (i.e., defined as a sense of belonging and willingness to contribute to the organization's innovativeness by creatively proposing opportunities) within the boundaries of the firm can support sensing (Camacho, 2016; Li et al, 2018; Porcini, 2009). In this vein, a structure calling for a more top‐down way of interacting might impede employees from sensing opportunities by hindering creative discovery (Geissdoerfer et al, 2016), whereas a more bottom‐up perspective can support sparking more creative ideas (Collins, 2013; Verganti, 2008).…”

“…At the individual level, problem framing (i.e., the capability to deconstruct the problem) is critical for every design thinker (Johansson‐Sköldberg et al, 2013) and is usually associated with the capability of embracing ambiguity (Beverland et al, 2016). Design thinkers should be able to accept the fact that solutions are not forever but are a proposal made to the market and continuously updated and modified (Drews, 2009; Li et al, 2018). Linked to the problem of (re)framing by embracing ambiguity is the individual framing and reframing capability that design thinkers should have to reconfigure an opportunity or problem (Paton & Dorst, 2011).…”

Use of Small Grants to Support and Enable Innovation in Teen Pregnancy Prevention

“…The purpose of the iTP 3 project was to support and enable innovative program (Luma Institute, 2015;Vechakul et al, 2015;Li et al, 2018). One example of gaining deep insight from the youth included a video-voice project in which participants showed their perspective of the issue at hand through making videos.…”