Design thinking, fast and slow: A framework for Kahneman’s dual-system theory in design

Kannengiesser, Udo; Gero, John S.

doi:10.1017/dsj.2019.9

Cited by 61 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 56 publications

(73 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…'Designing fast' means designing in an intuitive, seamless way, which is associated with routine design, whereas 'designing slow' implies that the designer goes through a number of reasoning processes to tackle a design problem. Kannengiesser & Gero (2019) show that all student and professional designers across a number of protocol analysis studies exhibit both System 1 and System 2 thinking.…”

Section: First-order Codingmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Design thinking calls for a variety of reasoning mechanisms. In a recent paper, Kannengiesser & Gero (2019) proposed a design thinking framework adapting Kahneman's concept of thinking fast and slow (Kahneman 2011). With experience, designers learn to 'think faster' and will propose design solutions in an effortless and intuitive way.…”

Section: Design Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using protocol analysis and the FBS ontology, Kannengiesser & Gero (2019) explore the use of design thinking systems depending on the designers' expertise. Design thinking demonstrates use of the dual process theory of thinking, elaborated in Kahneman's System 1 or thinking fast and System 2 or thinking slow (Kahneman 2011).…”

Section: First-order Codingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A framework for studying design thinking through measuring designers’ minds, bodies and brains

Gero

Milovanovic

2020

Des. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a framework for studying design thinking. Three paradigmatic approaches are described to measure design cognitive processes: design cognition, design physiology and design neurocognition. Specific tools and methods serve each paradigmatic approach. Design cognition is explored through protocol analysis, black-box experiments, surveys and interviews. Design physiology is measured with eye tracking, electrodermal activity, heart rate and emotion tracking. Design neurocognition is measured using electroencephalography, functional near infrared spectroscopy and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Illustrative examples are presented to describe the types of results each method provides about the characteristics of design thinking, such as design patterns, design reasoning, design creativity, design collaboration, the co-evolution of the problem solution space, or design analysis and evaluation. The triangulation of results from the three paradigmatic approaches to studying design thinking provides a synergistic foundation for the understanding of design cognitive processes. Results from such studies generate a source of feedback to designers, design educators and researchers in design science. New models, new tools and new research questions emerge from the integrated approach proposed and lay down future challenges in studying design thinking.

show abstract

Section: First-order Codingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Design Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A framework for studying design thinking through measuring designers’ minds, bodies and brains

Gero

Milovanovic

2020

Des. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most recently, the 1990s-2000s have seen designing formalized as a situated, exploratory, and evolutionary process by Goldschmidt (1991), Maher et al (1996), Gero & Kannengiesser (2004) and others. This has prompted a revitalization of the link to cognitive science and conceptualizations of design founded in cognition (e.g., Jin & Chusilp 2006;Park & Kim 2007;Jin & Benami 2010), with several moves towards the application of modern psychological theory in design research (e.g., Kannengiesser & Gero 2019;Perišić, Štorga & Gero 2019a).…”

Section: A Brief Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

The future of design cognition analysis

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

‘Design cognition’ refers to the mental processes and representations involved in designing, and has been a significant area of interest since the emergence of design research in the 1960s. The field now faces significant challenges moving into the future, with major change required to overcome stagnation in research topics and methodologies. Tackling these challenges requires us to understand the past and present of design cognition research, and open fresh discussions on its future. This thematic collection aims to address this need by taking stock of current approaches, exploring emerging topics and methodologies, and identifying future directions for enquiry. In this editorial, we examine key issues regarding both what we investigate and how we conduct this research. We present a vision formed from a structured literature review, the work of authors in the collection, and the views of a broad cross-section of the design cognition community. This vision is formalized in a roadmap from the present to the near and far future, highlighting key topics and research questions for the field. Ultimately, ecological measurement, new applications of artificial intelligence, and a move towards theory construction and research maturation constitute key long term challenges for the design cognition community.

show abstract

“…This is potentially a significant finding. According to Kannengiesser and Gero (2018a) the direct transition from F to S is indicative of the reflexive translation (or pattern matching) of functions (stimulus) into known solutions (structures), without first interpreting those functions as behaviours. This is known in cognitive science as System 1 thinking.…”

Section: Iced19mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Design Activity of Academics and Practitioners Using the FBS Ontology: A Case Study

Hurst

Nespoli

Abdellahi³

et al. 2019

Proc. Int. Conf. Eng. Des.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academics teach engineering design based on design theory and best practices, practitioners teach design based on their experience. Is there a difference between them? There appears to be little prior work in comparing the design processes of design academics and practitioners. This paper presents a case study in which the design activity of a team of academics was compared to that of a team of practitioners. The participants’ verbalizations during team discussions were coded using the Function- Behaviour-Structure (FBS) ontology. A qualitative comparison reveals that the team of practitioners constructs the design space earlier and generally spends more time in the solution space than the team of academics. Further, the team of practitioners has a significant number of direct transitions from function (F) to structure (S), while no such transitions are observed for the team of academics. Given that this is a single case study, the results cannot be used as the basis for any generalizations on how academics and practitioners compare. This is a successful proof of methodologies that lay the foundation for a series of hypotheses to be tested in a future study.

show abstract

Design thinking, fast and slow: A framework for Kahneman’s dual-system theory in design

Cited by 61 publications

References 56 publications

A framework for studying design thinking through measuring designers’ minds, bodies and brains

A framework for studying design thinking through measuring designers’ minds, bodies and brains

The future of design cognition analysis

A Comparison of Design Activity of Academics and Practitioners Using the FBS Ontology: A Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About