How task constraints affect inspiration search strategies
Searching for sources of inspiration is central to creative design; however, we have limited knowledge of individual inspiration search strategies in response to varying levels of task constraints. We studied 39 high-school students’ inspiration search strategies using Google Images. Low task constrainedness led to divergent search marked by quick iterations, limited design task usage, and a heterogeneous image set. Intermediate constrainedness prompted in-depth, on-task exploration characterized by slow and careful iterations with more search result examination, extensive design task usage, and homogenous images. High constrainedness led to flexible bracketing with quick, flexible design task use, ending with heterogeneous images. Images from the intermediately and highly constrained conditions generated more ideas and were perceived as more inspiring (relative to low) in a new group of students. We discuss the idea of a ‘sweet spot’ of constrainedness in an inspiration search process in design and consider implications for design research and future work.
KeywordsSources of inspiration Search strategy Constraints Google Images Quantitative study Sweet spot
We would like to thank the teachers and students from Ørestad High School, Copenhagen. This research was funded by the Innovation Fund Denmark (Grant 1311-00001B, CIBIS) and the Velux Foundations Grant: Digital Tools in Collaborative Creativity.
- Beaudouin-Lafon, M., & Mackay, W. (2003). Prototyping tools and techniques. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human–computer interaction handbook (2nd ed., pp. 1017–1040). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Biskjaer, M. M. (2013). Self-imposed creativity constraints. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.Google Scholar
- Biskjaer, M. M., Dalsgaard, P., & Halskov, K. (2014). A constraint-based understanding of design spaces. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’14) (pp. 453–462). New York: ACM. http://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598533.
- Boden, M. A. (2004). The creative mind: Myths and mechanisms (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1990).Google Scholar
- Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), 141–142.Google Scholar
- Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial, Modern Classics.Google Scholar
- Dorst, K. (1997). Describing design: A comparison of paradigms. Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology Press, Delft, Belgium.Google Scholar
- Dove, G., Hansen, N. B., & Halskov, K. (2016). An argument for design space reflection. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human–computer interaction (NordiCHI ‘16). New York: ACM, article. no. 17. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971528.
- Eastman, C. M. (1969). Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: A case study from design. In Proceedings of the first international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’69) (pp. 669–690). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses unbound: Studies in rationality, precommitment, and constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Goel, V. (1992). Comparison of well-structured and ill-structured task environments and problem spaces. In Proceedings of the 14th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 844–849). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Gonçalves, M. (2016). Decoding designers’ inspiration process. Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Herring, S. R., Chang, C.-C., Krantzler, J., & Bailey, B. P. (2009). Getting inspired! Understanding how and why examples are used in creative design practice. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’09) (pp. 87–96). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518717.
- Illies, J. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2004). The effects of type and level of personal involvement on information search and problem solving. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(8), 1709–1729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02794.x.Google Scholar
- Jarmusch, J. (2013). Things I’ve learned. Movie Maker Magazine [online edition], June 5, 2013. https://www.moviemaker.com/archives/series/things_learned/jim-jarmusch-5-golden-rules-of-moviemaking/. Accessed November 21, 2017.
- Joyce, C. K. (2009). The blank page: Effects of constraint on creativity. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kelley, T., & Littman, J. (2001). The art of innovation: Lessons in creativity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. New York: Currency/Doubleday.Google Scholar
- Koch, J., László, M., Lucero, A., & Oulasvirta, A. (2018). Surfing for inspiration: Digital inspirational material in design practice. In Proceedings of the 2018 design research society conference (DRS’18). University of Limerick, Ireland, June 25–28, 2018. https://doi.org/10.21606/dma.2017.352.
- Kuzminykh, A., & Lank, E. (2016). People searched by people: Context-based selectiveness in online search. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’16) (pp. 749–760). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901853.
- Linder, R., Snodgrass, C., & Kerne, A. (2014). Everyday ideation: All of my ideas are on Pinterest. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’14) (pp. 2411–2420). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557273.
- Lomas, J. D., Koedinger, K., Patel, N., Shodhan, S., Poonwala, N., & Forlizzi, J. L. (2017). Is difficulty overrated? The effects of choice, novelty and suspense on intrinsic motivation in educational games. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’17) (pp. 1028–1039). New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025638.
- Lucero, A. (2012). Framing, aligning, paradoxing, abstracting, and directing: How design mood boards work. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on designing interactive systems (DIS’12) (pp. 438–447). New York: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318021.
- Mumford, M. D., Blair, C., Dailey, L., Leritz, L. E., & Osburn, H. K. (2006). Errors in creative thought? Cognitive biases in a complex processing activity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40(2), 75–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2006.tb01267.x.Google Scholar
- Onarheim, B. (2012b). Creativity under constraints: Creativity as balancing ‘constrainedness. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ph.D. School of Economics and Management, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark.Google Scholar
- Onarheim, B., & Wiltschnig, S. (2010). Opening and constraining: Constraints and their role in creative processes. In Proceedings of the first conference on creativity and innovation in design (DESIRE’10) (pp. 83–89). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
- Paraskevopoulos, F., Taramigkou, M., Bothos, E., Apostolou, D., & Mentzas, G. (2014). Creative user centric inspirational search. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on intelligent user interfaces (IUI’14) (pp. 25–28). New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2559184.2559201.
- Perkins, D. N. (1994). Creativity: Beyond the Darwinian paradigm. In M. A. Boden (Ed.), Dimensions of creativity (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Quintana, M. G. B., Pujol, M. C., & Romaní, J. R. (2012). Internet navigation and information search strategies: How children are influenced by their participation in an intensive ICT project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(4), 513–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-011-9158-4.Google Scholar
- Reitman, W. R. (1964). Heuristic decision procedures, open constraints, and the structure of ill-defined problems. In M. W. Shelley & G. L. Bryan (Eds.), Human judgments and optimality (pp. 282–315). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Sanders, E. B.-N. (2005). Information, inspiration and co-creation. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference of the european academy of design, University of the Arts, Bremen, Germany.Google Scholar
- Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Schwartz, B. (2005). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: Ecco.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1969).Google Scholar
- Simpson, J. A., & Weiner, E. S. C. (Eds.). (1989). Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed., Vol. 7). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Sosa, R., Vasconcelos, L. A., & Cardoso, C. C. (2018). Design briefs in creativity studies. In DS 89: Proceedings of The fifth international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2018) (pp. 403–410). University of Bath, Bath, UK. The Design Society. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/40713/design+briefs+in+creativity+studies.
- Vandenbosch, B., & Gallagher, K. (2004). The role of constraints. In R. J. Boland Jr. & F. Collopy (Eds.), Managing as designing (pp. 198–202). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar