Advertisement

Introduction

  • Tim SeitzEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This introductory chapter departs from the citation of a design thinker: “We have to get into the boardrooms because that’s where you can change people’s thinking. If we make it there, we might really shake things up!.” This quotation captures some of the self-understanding of design thinking as a general problem solver. It reveals a tension that underlies the entire book: how do the practices of design thinking relate to its great promises? I give a brief overview of the historical roots of design thinking as a research program that was later translated into a standardized method of problem solving. This is followed by theoretical reflections on the relationship of practices and discourses that set the base for my subsequent elaborations.

Keywords

Practices Discourses Ethnography 

References

  1. Badke-Schaub, P., Cardoso, C., & Roozenburg, N. (2010). Design thinking: A paradigm on its way from dilution to meaninglessness? In K. Dorst, S. Steward, I. Staudinger, B. Paton, & A. Dong (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th design thinking research symposium DTRS8 (pp. 39–49). Sydney: DAB Documents.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  3. Cross, N., Dorst, K., & Roozenburg, N. (1992). Research in design thinking. Delft: Delft University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22, 4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hillebrandt, F. (2014). Soziologische Praxistheorien. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  6. Hirschauer, S. (2006). Putting things into words. Ethnographic description and the silence of the social. Human Studies, 29(4), 413–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hörning, K. (2001). Experten des Alltags. Die Wiederentdeckung des praktischen Wissens. Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  8. HPI School of Design Thinking. (2019a). Mindset – Design thinking. Retrieved June 15, 2019, from https://hpi.de/en/school-of-design-thinking/design-thinking/mindset.html.
  9. HPI School of Design Thinking. (2019b). Background – Design thinking. Retrieved June 15, 2019, from https://hpi.de/en/school-of-design-thinking/design-thinking/background.html.
  10. Jonas, W. (2011). Schwindelgefühle – Design thinking also general problem solver. Vortrag auf dem EKLAT Symposium. TU Berlin, 3 May. Retrieved June 15, 2019, from http://8149.website.snafu.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2011_EKLAT.pdf.
  11. 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
  12. Kieserling, A. (2004). Selbstbeschreibung und Fremdbeschreibung. Beiträge zur Soziologie soziologischen Wissens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  13. Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3, 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lawson, B. (1983). How designers think. London: Butterworth Architecture.Google Scholar
  15. Lindberg, T. S. (2013). Design-thinking-Diskurse: Bestimmung, Themen, Entwicklungen. Dissertation. University of Potsdam. Retrieved June 15, 2019, from https://publishup.uni-potsdam.de/frontdoor/index/index/searchtype/authorsearch/author/Tilmann+Sören+Lindberg/rows/10/docId/6733/start/0.
  16. Luhmann, N. (2000). Art as a social system. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press (Meridian Crossing Aesthetics).Google Scholar
  17. Mareis, C. (2010). Visual productivity. Reflections on the foundations and correlations of design thinking, in: Proceedings of the 21st Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics.Google Scholar
  18. Mareis, C. (2011). Design als Wissenskultur. Interferenzen zwischen Design-und Wissensdiskursen seit 1960. Bielefeld: transcript.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marzavan, D. (2015). Vom Kopf ins Herz über die Hand zum Produkt. Retrieved June 15, 2019, from http://ffluid.de/blog/vom-kopf-ins-herz-ueber-die-hand-zum-produkt/.
  20. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. J. (2012a). Design thinking research. Measuring performance in context. Berlin; London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. J. (2012b). Design thinking research. Studying co-creation in practice. Berlin; New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. J. (2014). Design thinking research. Building innovation eco-systems. Cham; New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. J. (2015). Design thinking research. Building innovators. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Plattner, H., Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. J. (2016). Design thinking research. Making design thinking foundational. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Rawsthorn, A. (2010, January 31). Debating Sustainability. New York Times.Google Scholar
  26. Reckwitz, A. (2003). Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken: Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektive. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 32(4), 282–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reckwitz, A. (2010). Auf dem Weg zu einer kultursoziologischen Analytik zwischen Praxeologie und Poststrukturalismus. In M. Wohlrab-Sahr (Ed.), Kultursoziologie. Paradigmen – Methoden – Fragestellungen (pp. 179–205). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Salustri, F. A., & Eng, N. L. (2007). Design as…: Thinking of what design might be. Journal of Design Principles and Practices, 1, 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schäfer, H. (2012). Kreativität und Gewohnheit. Ein Vergleich zwischen Praxistheorie und Pragmatismus. In U. Göttlich & R. Kurt (Eds.), Kreativität und Improvisation. Soziologische Positionen (pp. 17–43). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt, R. (2011). Die Entdeckung der Praxeographie. Zum Erkenntnisstil der Soziologie Bourdieus. In D. Šuber (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu und die Kulturwissenschaften. Zur Aktualität eines undisziplinierten Denkens (pp. 89–106). Konstanz: UVK-Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  32. Schmidt, R. (2012). Soziologie der Praktiken. Konzeptionelle Studien und empirische Analysen. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  33. Schmiedgen, J., Rhinow, H., Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2015). Parts without a whole? – The current state of design thinking practice in organizations (Study Report No. 97) (p. 144). Potsdam: Hasso-Plattner-Institut für Softwaresystemtechnik an der Universität Potsdam. Retrieved June 15, 2019, from https://thisisdesignthinking.net/why-this-site/the-study/.
  34. Star, S. L. (1992). Cooperation without consensus in scientific problem solving: Dynamics of closure in open systems. In S. Easterbrook (Ed.), Cooperation or conflict? (pp. 93–106). London; New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects. Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tonkinwise, C. (2011). A taste for practices: Unrepressing style in design thinking. Design Studies, 32, 533–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weber, S. M. (2019). Change by design!? Knowledge cultures of design and organizational strategies of creation. In M. A. Peters & S. M. Weber (Eds.), Organization and newness: Discourses and ecologies of innovation in the Creative University (pp. 233–246). Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University of BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations