Advertisement

Mining the Role of Design Reflection and Associated Brain Dynamics in Creativity

  • Neeraj SonalkarEmail author
  • Sahar Jahanikia
  • Hua Xie
  • Caleb Geniesse
  • Rafi Ayub
  • Roger Beaty
  • Manish Saggar
Chapter
Part of the Understanding Innovation book series (UNDINNO)

Abstract

Reflection—the activity of reasoning through an action that has occurred—has been shown to be of importance to the development of design expertise. Although design reflection has been widely studied previously, several gaps in the knowledge still exist. First, previous work in design reflection has been mostly limited to descriptive and prescriptive research, while very few researchers investigated the effect of design reflection on performance of individuals and teams. Second, previous researchers limited the study of reflection to the language used and its reference to the design problem or solution space. Third, previous work on design reflection has not taken into account the antagonist of reflection—i.e., rumination. Rumination is characterized as repetitive and persistent evaluation of the meaning, causes, and consequences of one’s affective state and personal concerns, and has been shown to negatively affect creativity and problem solving. In this project, we planned to address these limitations by (1) assessing the effects of different types of reflection on creative performance; (2) going beyond the frontier of language (or speech) and additionally investigating the role of brain and interaction dynamics during design reflection; and (3) including psychological construct of rumination in addition to reflection. We hypothesized that given the critical importance of reflection in design thinking, our approach will provide a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between brain dynamics, design reflection, and creativity.

References

  1. Bayazit, N. (2004). Investigating design: A review of forty years of design research. Design Issues, 20(1), 16–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Christoff, K., Irving, Z. C., Fox, K. C., Spreng, R. N., & Andrews-Hanna, J. R. (2016). Mind-wandering as spontaneous thought: A dynamic framework. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17(11), 718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dewey, J. (1933) How we think. Prometheus Books. Original work published 1910. Buffalo, N.Y.Google Scholar
  5. Dorst, K., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2004). Levels of expertise in design education. In DS 33: Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, the 7th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Hart, Y., Mayo, A. E., Mayo, R., Rozenkrantz, L., Tendler, A., & Alon, U., et al. (2017). Creative foraging: An experimental paradigm for studying exploration and discovery. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0182133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hart, Y., et al. (2018). Creative exploration as a scale-invariant search on a meaning landscape. Nature Communications, 9, 5411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hirsch, P. L., & McKenna, A. F. (2008). Using reflection to promote teamwork understanding in engineering design education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 377.Google Scholar
  9. Kolb, D. F., & Fry, R. R.(1975).Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. Theories of group processes, 33–58.Google Scholar
  10. Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. Wyer Jr. (Ed.), Ruminative thoughts (Vol. 11, pp. 1–47)., Advances in social cognition Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Mor, N., & Winquist, J. (2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 638–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Morrow, J., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1993). Response styles and the duration of episodes of depressed mood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roozenburg, N. F., & Dorst, K. (1998). Describing design as a reflective practice: Observations on Schön’s theory of practice. In Designers (pp. 29–41). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Saggar, M., et al. (2018). Towards a new approach to reveal dynamical organization of the brain using topological data analysis. Nature Communications, 9, 1399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practicioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 1). New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  16. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sonalkar, N., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (2013). Developing a visual representation to characterize moment-to-moment concept generation in design teams. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1(2), 93–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination reconsidered: A psychometric analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27, 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Turns, J., Newstetter, W., Allen, J. K., & Mistree, F. (1997). Learning essays and the reflective learner: Supporting reflection in engineering design education. In Proceedings of ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
  20. Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Verhaeghen, P., Joorman, J., & Khan, R. (2005). Why we sing the blues: the relation between self-reflective rumination, mood, and creativity. Emotion, 5(2), 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Whiteman, R. C., & Mangels, J. A. (2016). Rumination and rebound from failure as a function of gender and time on task. Brain Sciences, 6(1), 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neeraj Sonalkar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sahar Jahanikia
    • 2
  • Hua Xie
    • 3
  • Caleb Geniesse
    • 2
  • Rafi Ayub
    • 2
  • Roger Beaty
    • 4
  • Manish Saggar
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Design Research, Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  3. 3.OHSU Center for Regenerative MedicinePortlandUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations