Investigating design: A comparison of manifest and latent approaches

This paper contributes to the on-going focus on improving design research methods, by exploring and synthesising two key interrelated research approaches – manifest and latent. These approaches are widely used individually in design research, however, this paper represents the first work bringing them together and explicitly investigating their complementarity in the design domain. This is realised using an example artificial observation study. In addition to discussing underlying relationships between the approaches, this paper identifies key opportunities for improving design research methods by more explicitly combining both manifest and latent elements. Finally, a number of combinatory approaches are proposed based on a conceptual framework.

[1]  Christoph Hölscher,et al.  Web search behavior of Internet experts and newbies , 2000, Comput. Networks.

[2]  Carolyn Watters,et al.  A field study characterizing Web-based information-seeking tasks , 2007 .

[3]  Lishi Kwasitsu,et al.  Information-seeking behavior of design, process, and manufacturing engineers , 2003 .

[4]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Forty years of design research , 2007 .

[5]  Clive L. Dym,et al.  Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views , 1994 .

[6]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[7]  R. Adler,et al.  Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures content analysis , 1999 .

[8]  P. Mayring.  Qualitative Content Analysis , 2000 .

[9]  Henri Christiaans,et al.  Creativity in Design Engineering and the Role of Knowledge: Modelling the Expert , 2005 .

[10]  J. Hayes.  Cognitive Processes in Creativity , 1989 .

[11]  Stephen Culley,et al.  Analysing creative behaviour in the later stage design process , 2013 .

[12]  Elies Dekoninck,et al.  The appearance of creative behavior in later stage design processes , 2014 .

[13]  M. Csíkszentmihályi.  Implications of a Systems Perspective for the Study of Creativity , 1998 .

[14]  J. Hair.  Multivariate data analysis , 1972 .

[15]  Mark Robinson.  An empirical analysis of engineers' information behaviors , 2010 .

[16]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[17]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[18]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2003 .

[19]  B. Lundman,et al.  Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. , 2004, Nurse education today.

[20]  Mogens Myrup Andreasen,et al.  The design ontology: foundation for the design knowledge exchange and management , 2010 .

[21]  J. Guilford.  The structure of intellect. , 1956, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[23]  John S. Gero,et al.  The structure of concurrent cognitive actions: a case study on novice and expert designers , 2002 .

[24]  Kyung H Kim.  Can We Trust Creativity Tests? A Review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) , 2006 .

[25]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  Understanding how the information requests of aerospace engineering designers influence information-seeking behaviour , 2010 .

[26]  U. Flick.  An Introduction to Qualitative Research , 1998 .

[27]  Lucienne Blessing,et al.  Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks , 2003 .

[28]  I. Densten,et al.  Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis Using Latent and Manifest Variables , 1998 .

[29]  Fumihiko Kimura,et al.  Design methodologies: Industrial and educational applications , 2009 .

[30]  Colin Robson,et al.  Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers , 1993 .

[31]  Andy Dong,et al.  The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication , 2005 .

[32]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[33]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data , 2007 .

[34]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes , 1999 .

[35]  C. Dorst.  Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen☆ , 2008 .

[36]  M. Boden.  WHAT IS CREATIVITY , 2005 .

[37]  Donald W. King,et al.  Communication by Engineers: A Literature Review of Engineers' Information Needs, Seeking Processes, and Use. , 1994 .

[38]  Gary Wills,et al.  Knowledge use in an advanced manufacturing environment , 2011 .

[39]  Saeema Ahmed-Kristensen,et al.  Merged ontology for engineering design: Contrasting empirical and theoretical approaches to develop engineering ontologies , 2009, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[40]  J. Kim,et al.  PRODUCT EXPRESSION AND SELF-CONSTRUAL: DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS OF CONNECTED SHAPES ON SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS , 2012 .

[41]  W. James Potter,et al.  Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis , 1999 .

[42]  T. M. Amabile.  Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. , 1982 .

[43]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes , 2006 .

[44]  K. Klenke,et al.  Qualitative Research in the Study of Leadership , 2016 .

[45]  M. Kirton.  Adaptors and Innovators: A Description and Measure. , 1976 .

[46]  Petra Badke-Schaub,et al.  Designers : the key to successful product development , 1998 .

[47]  Hilary Grierson,et al.  Detailed empirical studies of student information storing in the context of distributed design team-based project work , 2013 .

[48]  Kimberly A. Neuendorf,et al.  The Content Analysis Guidebook , 2001 .

[49]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  Assessing design creativity , 2011 .

[50]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design , 1990, AI Mag..

[51]  J. Creswell,et al.  Mixed Methods Research Designs in Counseling Psychology. , 2005 .

[52]  Thomas Cook,et al.  Where does good evidence come from? , 2007 .

[53]  J. Gero.  Computational Models of Innovative and Creative Design Processes , 2000 .

[54]  John S. Gero,et al.  The differences between retrospective and concurrent protocols in revealing the process-oriented aspects of the design process , 2001 .

[55]  A. Cropley.  In Praise of Convergent Thinking , 2006 .

[56]  Mattias Lindahl,et al.  Engineering designers’ experience of design for environment methods and tools : Requirement definitions from an interview study , 2006 .

[57]  Edward Elias,et al.  Methodological insights from a rigorous small scale design experiment , 2012 .

[58]  Lucienne Blessing,et al.  DRM, a Design Research Methodology , 2009 .

[59]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  DEFINING AND SUPPORTING DESIGN CREATIVITY , 2006 .

[60]  Peter Lloyd,et al.  About: Designing , 2022 .

[61]  W. Neuman,et al.  Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 2002 .

[62]  Vinod Goel,et al.  The Structure of Design Problem Spaces , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[63]  Tore Dybå,et al.  Empirical studies of agile software development: A systematic review , 2008, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[64]  Ben J Hicks,et al.  A comparison of designer activity using core design situations in the laboratory and practice , 2013 .

[65]  Saeema Ahmed,et al.  Encouraging reuse of design knowledge: a method to index knowledge , 2005 .

[66]  Peter Lloyd,et al.  Discovering the design problem , 1994 .

[67]  Thomas J. Howard,et al.  Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature , 2008 .