Studies on the Use of Variations of ‘Brainstorming’ in Creative Design Situations
To favor creative design activities, we elaborated variations of the seminal ‘brainstorming’ technique to be used in early design. In contrast to the classical brainstorming’, these techniques are (1) used in individual situations, and (2) they aim to lead participants to adopt either a focus on the evocation of ideas (as in the classical brainstorming technique) or on the evocation and management of constraints related to the design problem. To analyze the effects of these two techniques of brainstorming, we conducted three studies with respectively students in design (study 1), future generalist teachers (study 2), and future teachers specialized in creative activities (study 3). Depending on the experimental groups, in each study, participants were provided with instructions that are intended to stimulate them either to look for numerous and various ideas (CQFD groups), or to analyze constraints related to the design problem at hand (CQHD groups), or else with no specific instruction (control groups). In a second phase, in all the studies, the participants’ creative productions were submitted to ‘judges’, consisting of teachers specialized in creative activities, who had to evaluate them with regard to various criteria. Scores on the creative performances show that the conditions to enhance creative performances depend on the participants’ background and specialty. Thus, students in design benefit the most from instructions focused on constraints related to the design problem whereas students consisting in future generalist teachers and future teachers specialized in creative activities benefit the most from instructions focusing on the evocation of ideas.
KeywordsCreativity Design Brainstorming Ideas Constraints
We are very grateful to Ghyslaine Traskine as well as to all the participants (students and teachers) in our studies.
- Bonnardel N (2012) Designing future products: what difficulties do designers encounter and how can their creative process be supported? Work J Prevent Assess Rehabil 41:5296–5303Google Scholar
- Robert J-M, Brangier E (2012) Prospective ergonomics: origin, goal, and prospects. Work J Prevent Assess Rehabil 41:5235–5242Google Scholar
- Csíkszentmihályi M (1999) Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Lubart T, Mouchiroud C, Tordjman S, Zenasni F (2003) Psychologie de la créativité. Armand Colin, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Simon HA (1995) Problem forming, problem finding and problem solving in design. In: Collen A, Gasparski W (eds) Design & systems. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 245–257Google Scholar
- Bonnardel N (1999) L’évaluation reflexive dans la dynamique de l’activité du concepteur. In: Perrin J (ed) Pilotage et évaluation des activités de conception. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp 87–105Google Scholar
- Osborn AF (1963) Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creativity thinking. Charles Scribiner’s Son press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Altshuller GS (2004) 40 principes d’innovation. A. Seredinski, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Torrance EP (1965) Scientific views of creativity and factors affecting its growth. Daedalus Creat Learn 94(3):663–681Google Scholar
- Didier J, Leuba D (2011) La conception d’un objet: un acte créatif. Prismes 15:32–33Google Scholar
- Bonnardel N (2006) Créativité et conception: Approches cognitives et ergonomiques (Creativity and design: cognitive and ergonomics approaches). Solal, MarseilleGoogle Scholar