Advertisement

ICoRD'13 pp 223-234 | Cite as

Craftsmen Versus Designers: The Difference of In-Depth Cognitive Levels at the Early Stage of Idea Generation

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

This paper investigates the in-depth cognitive levels at the early stage of idea generation for craftsmen and designers. Examining this early stage may explain the fundamental thoughts in observing and defining design problems. We conducted an experiment using think-aloud protocol, where verbalized thoughts were analyzed using a concept network method based on associative concept analysis. Furthermore, we identified semantic relationships based on Factor Analysis. The findings showed that craftsmen tended to activate low-weighted associative concepts at in-depth cognitive level with a smaller number of polysemous features, thus explaining their concerns about tangible-related issues, such as proportion and shape. Designers, however, activated highly weighted associative concepts with more polysemous features, and they were typically concerned with intangible issues, such as surroundings context (i.e., eating culture) and users’ affective preferences (i.e., companion, appeal).

Keywords

In-depth cognitive level Early stage of idea generation Designers Craftsmen 

References

  1. 1.
    Cross N (2006) Designerly ways of knowing. Birkhauser, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nagai Y, Georgiev GV, Zhou F (2011) A methodology to analyze in-depth impressions of design on the basis of concept networks. J Des Res 9(1):44–64Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Houtz JC, Patricola C (1999) Imagery. In: Runco MA, Pritzker SR (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity, vol 2. Academic Press, Sand Diego, CAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leijnen S, Gabora L (2010) An agent-based simulation of the effectiveness of creative leadership. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, Portland, 5 Aug 11–14 2010Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reingold E, Colleen R (2003) Implicit cognition, in encyclopedia of cognitive science. Nature publishing group, London, pp 481–485Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Georgiev GV, Nagai Y (2011) A conceptual network analysis of user impressions and meanings of product materials in design. Mater Des 32(8–9):4230–4242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taura T, Yamamoto E, Fasiha MYN, Nagai Y (2010) Virtual impression networks for capturing deep impressions, design computing and cognition DCC’10. In: Gero JS (ed) pp xx–yy © SpringerGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ericsson KA, Simon HA (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mwihaki A (2004) Meaning as use: a functional view of semantics and pragmatics. Swahili Forum 11:127–139Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nelson DL, McEvoy CL, Schreiber TA (2004) The university of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behav Res Methods 36:402–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maki WS, Buchanan E (2008) Latent structure in measures of associative, semantic and thematic knowledge. Psychon Bull Rev 15(3):598–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Batagelj V, Mrvar A (2003) Pajek—analysis and visualization of large networks. In: Jünger M, Mutzel P (eds) Graph drawing software. Springer, Berlin, pp 77–103Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leskovec J (2008) Dynamics of large networks. PhD thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mednick MT, Mednick SA, Jung CC (1964) Continual association as a function of level of creativity and type of verbal stimulus. J Abnorm Soci Psychol 69(5):511–515Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baer J (1993) Creativity and divergent thinking: a task specific approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eysenck HJ (1997) Creativity and personality. In: Runco MA (ed) Creativity research handbook vol 1. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ pp 41–66Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Martindale C (1995) Creativity and connectionism. In: Steven SM, Ward TB, Finke RF (eds) The creative cognition approach. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 249–268Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yamamoto E, Mukai F, Fasiha MYN, Taura T, Nagai, Y (2009) A method to generate and evaluate creative design idea by focusing on associative process. In: Proceedings of the ASME2009. CaliforniaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deny W. Junaidy
    • 1
  • Yukari Nagai
    • 1
  • Muhammad Ihsan
    • 2
  1. 1.Japan Advanced Institute of Science and TechnologyIshikawaJapan
  2. 2.Institute of Technology BandungBandungIndonesia

Personalised recommendations