Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:18:35.059Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE DESIGN MINDSET INVENTORY (D-MINDSET0): A PRELIMINARY INSTRUMENT FOR MEASURING DESIGN MINDSET

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Jakob Clemen Lavrsen ,
Jaap Daalhuizen  and
Claus-Christian Carbon
Jakob Clemen Lavrsen*
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark - DTU;
Jaap Daalhuizen
Affiliation:
Technical University of Denmark - DTU;
Claus-Christian Carbon
Affiliation:
University of Bamberg
*
Lavrsen, Jakob Clemen, Technical University of Denmark - DTU, Denmark, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Mindset has been identified as an essential aspect of design and innovation, impacting both behaviours and performance. However, the concept of design mindset is elusive. Often design mindset is used indistinguishably from design behaviour, diminishing the complexity of the mechanisms and cognitive processes underlying design behaviour. As the initial step in researching these mechanisms, we operationalise the concept of design mindset and present the design mindset inventory (D-Mindset0) to measure it. The initial inventory centered around 16 agreement-to-value statements related to design practice. To analyse the inventory, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis based on 473 master students from different engineering disciplines participating in a course on innovation in engineering. The analysis revealed a four-factor structure with 11 final items. The four factors align with the concepts of ‘conversation with the situation,’ ‘iteration,’ ‘co-evolution of problem-solution,’ and ‘imagination.’

Keywords

Design mindsetDesign theoryPsychometricsResearch methodologies and methodsDesign cognition
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 3: ICED23 , July 2023 , pp. 3355 - 3364
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Abell, N., Springer, D.W. and Kamata, A. (2009), Developing and Validating Rapid Assessment Instruments, Oxford University Press, https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333367.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, M.M. (2003), “Improving Design Methods’ Usability by a Mindset Approach”, in Lindemann, U. (Ed.), Human Behaviour in Design: Individuals, Teams, Tools, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 209–218, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07811-2_21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, M.M., Hansen, C.T. and Cash, P. (2015), Conceptual Design. Interpretations, Mindset and Models, Conceptual Design: Interpretations, Mindset and Models, Springer, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19839-2.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1997), Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control, Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
Cash, P., Daalhuizen, J., Valgeirsdottir, D. and Van Oorschot, R. (2019), “A Theory-Driven Design Research Agenda: Exploring Dual-Process Theory”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1373–1382, https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.143.Google Scholar
Cash, P.J. (2018), “Developing theory-driven design research”, Design Studies, Vol. 56, pp. 84–119, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (2013), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Routledge, https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N. (2021), “The Evolution of ‘Co-evolution’ (Part I): Problem Solving, Problem Finding, and Their Interaction in Design and Other Creative Practices”, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 309–332, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2021.07.003.Google Scholar
Crismond, D.P. and Adams, R.S. (2012), “The Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix”, Journal of Engineering Education, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Vol. 101 No. 4, pp. 738–797, https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/J.2168-9830.2012.TB01127.X.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (1990), “The nature and nurture of design ability”, Design Studies, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2001), “Design Cognition: Results from Protocol and other Empirical Studies of Design Activity”, in Eastman, C.M.M., Michael Newstetter, W., Wendy, C. (Ed.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, Elsevier Science, pp. 79–103, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50005-X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daalhuizen, J., Person, O. and Gattol, V. (2014), “A personal matter? An investigation of students’ design process experiences when using a heuristic or a systematic method”, Design Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 133–159, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daalhuizen, Jaap. (2014), Method Usage in Design - How Methods Function as Mental Tools for Designers, Technische Universiteit Delft, doi: https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:4ac01165-c6b5-4057-a2fe-3418907f251e.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2011), “The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application”, Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 521–532, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. (2015), “Frame Creation and Design in the Expanded Field”, She Ji, Tongji University Press, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 22–33, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2015.07.003.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dosi, C., Rosati, F. and Vignoli, M. (2018), “Measuring design thinking mindset”, Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Vol. 5, pp. 1991–2002, https://dx.doi.org/10.21278/IDC.2018.0493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dove, G., Abildgaard, S.J., Biskjaer, M.M., Hansen, N.B., Christensen, B.T. and Halskov, K. (2018), “Grouping notes through nodes: The functions of Post-It notes in design team cognition”, Design Studies, Elsevier, Vol. 57, pp. 112–134, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.DESTUD.2018.03.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J.St.B.T., Over, D.E. and Handley, S.J. (2005), “A Theory of Hypothetical Thinking”, in Hardman, D. and Macchi, L. (Eds.), Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment and Decision Making, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK, pp. 1–21, https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/047001332X.ch1.Google Scholar
Findeli, A. (2001), “Rethinking Design Education for the 21st Century: Theoretical, Methodological, and Ethical Discussion”, Design Issues, MIT Press - Journals, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 5–17, https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/07479360152103796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollwitzer, P.M. (2012), “Mindset Theory of Action Phases”, Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 1, Vol. Volume 1, SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom, pp. 526–546, https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassi, L. and Laakso, M. (2011), “Design Thinking In The Management Discourse: Defining The Elements Of The Concept”, 18th International Product Development Management Conference, Innovate Through Design, Delft, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Jobst, B., Köppen, E., Lindberg, T., Moritz, J., Rhinow, H. and Meinel, C. (2012), “The Faith-Factor in Design Thinking: Creative Confidence Through Education at the Design Thinking Schools Potsdam and Stanford?”, Design Thinking Research: Measuring Performance in Context, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 35–46, https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, K.B. (2018), “Understanding innovation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 453–460, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, D. and Kelley, T. (2013), Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential within Us All, Crown Business, New York.Google Scholar
Lawson, B. (2005), How Designers Think, 0 ed., Routledge, https://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780080454979.Google Scholar
Leiner, D.J. (2019), “SoSci Survey (Version 3.1.06)”, available at: https://www.soscisurvey.de/en/about (accessed 9 November 2022).Google Scholar
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2d ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Osborn, A.F. (1963), Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem-Solving, 3rd rev. ed., Charles Scribner's, New York.Google Scholar
Schön, D.A. (1983), The Reflective Practitioner. How Professionals Think in Action, Cybernetics and Human Knowing.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, J., Groeger, L. and Sobel, L. (2016), “The Design Thinking Mindset: An Assessment of What We Know and What We See in Practice”, Journal of Design, Business & Society, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71–94, https://dx.doi.org/10.1386/dbs.2.1.71_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1996), The Sciences of the Artificial, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Streiner, D.L. (2003), “Starting at the Beginning: An Introduction to Coefficient Alpha and Internal Consistency”, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 99–103, https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wacker, J.G. (1998), “A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 361–385, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00019-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, R.W. (2009), “On ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking in creativity”, in Markman, A. and Wood, K. (Eds.), Tools for Innovation, Oxford University Press, pp. 23–47, https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195381634.001.0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar