The Novelty Perspectives Framework: A New Conceptualisation of Novelty for Cognitive Design Studies

Novelty can be evaluated from the perspective of the designer who creates a concept (personal novelty), and people who perceive it post-creation (socio-novelty). In each case, the extent to which the concept is new compared to known artefacts is judged. The designer?s evaluation is based on the same knowledge from which the concept was produced. Thus, if the concept is novel to the designer, creative cognitive processing must have occurred, i.e. something new was created in the mind. Evaluations made by other people are based on their own knowledge, which may differ from the designer?s. Thus, concepts they view as novel are not necessarily the output of creative cognition. In this paper, we posit that personal novelty is directly related to designer cognition, whilst socio-novelty is not. However, existing metrics focus on the latter, and may be misleading in cognitive studies. To stimulate discussion, we formalise personal and socio-novelty in the Novelty Perspectives Framework. Empirical data suggests that the perspectives may be distinguished in practice. Future implications of the NPF are explored, highlighting the potential for insights at both the cognitive and neural level.

[1]  Jami J. Shah,et al.  Empirical Studies of Designer Thinking: Past, Present, and Future , 2015 .

[2]  Yan Jin,et al.  Study of mental iteration in different design situations , 2006 .

[3]  Lassi A. Liikkanen,et al.  Inspiring design idea generation: insights from a memory-search perspective , 2010 .

[4]  John S. Gero,et al.  A computational study of creativity in design: The role of society , 2005, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

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

[6]  Amaresh Chakrabarti,et al.  A MEASURE FOR ASSESSING PRODUCT NOVELTY , 2003 .

[7]  John Baer,et al.  A Comparison of Expert and Nonexpert Raters Using the Consensual Assessment Technique , 2008 .

[8]  Mathias Benedek,et al.  To create or to recall? Neural mechanisms underlying the generation of creative new ideas☆ , 2014, NeuroImage.

[9]  D. Simonton.  Big-C Versus Little-c Creativity: Definitions, Implications, and Inherent Educational Contradictions , 2017 .

[10]  Lorenzo Fiorineschi,et al.  ISSUES RELATED TO MISSING ATTRIBUTES IN A-POSTERIORI NOVELTY ASSESSMENTS , 2018 .

[11]  Mathias Benedek,et al.  To create or to recall original ideas: Brain processes associated with the imagination of novel object uses , 2018, Cortex.

[12]  Carolyn Conner Seepersad,et al.  Study of Existing Metrics Used in Measurement of Ideation Effectiveness , 2010 .

[13]  Arnold P. O. S. Vermeeren,et al.  Measuring and comparing novelty for design solutions generated by young children through different design methods , 2016 .

[14]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications , 1996 .

[15]  David W. Rosen,et al.  Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness , 2009 .

[16]  Alex H. B. Duffy,et al.  Towards a shared ontology: A generic classification of cognitive processes in conceptual design , 2017, Design Science.

[17]  D. Schacter,et al.  Creative Cognition and Brain Network Dynamics , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  David C. Brown.  Problems with the Calculation of Novelty Metrics , 2014 .

[19]  Alex H. B. Duffy,et al.  A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: Design as search and exploration , 2017, Design Science.