Abstract
The formulation of questions in processes of design is an activity affected by cognitive biases inherent to humans. Cognitive biases, developed through gaining experience, influence how decisions are made during problem solving. When an outcome is predictable, experience provides mental shortcuts or heuristics to enable the problem solver to act effectively. When an outcome is uncertain, cognitive biases can wrongfully project preconceptions, elevate self-interest, and undermine the problem solver’s greater ambitions for positive impact. Mitigating cognitive bias is thus vital for design problem solving under conditions of uncertainty. Designers explore uncertainty through an approach typified by human empathy, problem framing, and creativity. This chapter reveals the nature of asking effective questions within designerly thinking. This means understanding nuances of context, surfacing novel insights about how a system performs, and crucially working out how people within systems experience the world around them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beckman LS, Barry M (2007) Innovation as a learning process: embedding design thinking. Calif Manag Rev 50(1):25–56
Busby J, Lloyd P (1999) Influences on solution search processes in design Organisations. Res Eng Des 11(1):158–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001630050012
Camacho Duarte O, Lulham R, Kaldor L (2011) Co-designing out crime. CoDesign 7(3–4):155–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.630476
Crilly N (2015) Fixation and creativity in concept development: The attitudes and practices of expert designers. Design Studies 38:54–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.01.002
Damle A, Smith PJ (2009) Biasing cognitive processes during design: the effects of color. Des Stud 30(5):521–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.01.001
Dong, A., Lovallo, D., & Mounarath, R. (2015). The effect of abductive reasoning on concept selection decisions. Des Stud, 37(?), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.12.004
Dorst K (2011) The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies 32(6):521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006
Dorst K (2017) Notes on design. BIS Publishers, Amsterdam
Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Des Stud 22(5):425–437
Heylighen, A., & Dong, A. (2019). To empathise or not to empathise? Empathy and its limits in design. Des Stud, 65(?), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.007
Jakobsen A, Bucciarelli L (2007) Transdisciplinary variation in engineering curricula problems and means for solutions. Eur J Eng Educ 32(3):295–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790701276809
Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Liedtka J (2015) Perspective: linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive Bias reduction. J Prod Innov Manag 32(6):925–938. https://doi.org/0.1111/jpim.12163
Lloyd P, Scott P (1994) Discovering the design problem. Des Stud 15(2):125–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)90020-5
Maher M, Poon J, Boulanger S (1996) Formalising design exploration as co-evolution. In: Advances in formal design methods for CAD, pp 3–30
Moore P, Conn CP (1985) Disguised: a true story. Word Books, Waco
Nikander JB, Liikkanen LA, Laakso M (2014) The preference effect in design concept evaluation. Des Stud 35(5):473–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.006
Owen CL (1998) Design research: building the knowledge base. Des Stud 19(1):9–20
Price R, Wrigley C (2016) Design and a deep customer insight approach to innovation. J Int Consum Mark 28(2):92–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2015.1092405
Price R, Wrigley C, Matthews JH (2018) Three narrative techniques for engagement and action in design-led innovation. She Ji J Des Econ Innov 4(2):186–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2018.04.001
Schön D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York
Seidel, V. P., & Fixson, S. K. (2013). Adopting design thinking in novice multidisciplinary teams: the application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices. J Prod Innov Manag, 30(?), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12061
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Walton M (1997) Car: a drama of the American workplace. W.W. Norton & Co.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Price, R.A., Lloyd, P. (2022). Asking Effective Questions. In: Maier, A., Oehmen, J., Vermaas, P.E. (eds) Handbook of Engineering Systems Design. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_24-2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_24-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46054-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46054-9
eBook Packages: Springer Reference EngineeringReference Module Computer Science and Engineering
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Asking Effective Questions: Awareness of Bias in Designerly Thinking- Published:
- 06 January 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_24-4
-
Asking Effective Questions: Awareness of Bias in Designerly Thinking
- Published:
- 13 May 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_24-3
-
Asking Effective Questions
- Published:
- 11 February 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_24-2
-
Original
Asking Effective Questions- Published:
- 06 October 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46054-9_24-1