A fix for fixation? Rerepresenting and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 231-244

  Zahner, Doris ^a   Nickerson, Jeffrey V ^a   Tversky, Barbara ^b   Corter, James E ^b   Ma, Jing ^a  

^a STEVENS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b Box 118 ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Abstraction; Design of information systems; Fluency: originality; Rerepresentation

Indexed keywords

ABSTRACTION; CREATIVE PROCESS; FLUENCY: ORIGINALITY; NEW DESIGN; PROBLEM CONSTRAINTS; RE-REPRESENTATION; REFLECTIVE DESIGNS; SOFTWARE INTENSIVE SYSTEMS;

ABSTRACTING; DESIGN; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; SOFTWARE DESIGN;

BRIDGES;

EID: 77952353305     PISSN: 08900604     EISSN: 14691760     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0890060410000077     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
2. Anderson, J.A. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Bergman, M., King, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2001). Large scale requirements analysis as heterogeneous engineering. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 12(1), 37-55.
4. Bergman, M., King, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2002). Large scale requirements analysis revisited: the need for understanding the political ecology of requirements engineering. Requirements Engineering Journal 7(3), 152-171.
5. Booch, G., Jacobson, I., & Rumbaugh, J. (1998). The Unified Modelling Language User Guide. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6. Choi, H., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 98(2), 121-132.
7. Christensen, B.T., & Schunn, C.D. (2004). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition 35(1), 29-38.
8. Dunker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs 55(No.270).
9. Finke, R. (1990). Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions in Visualization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Fowler, M. (2004). UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11. Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., & Vlissides, J. (1995). Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.
12. Gasper, K. (2004). Do you see what I see? Affect and visual information processing. Cognition and Emotion 18(3), 405-421.
13. Gentner, D., & Markman, A.B. (2006). Defining structural similarity. Journal of Cognitive Science 6(1), 1-20.
14. Gentner, D., & Stevens, A.L. (Eds.). (1983). Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (2000). Metaphor and knowledge change. In Cognitive Dynamics: Conceptual and Representational Change in Humans and Machines (Dietrich, E., & Markman, A.B., Eds.), pp. 294-342. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology 12(3), 306-355.
17. Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology 15(1), 1-39.
18. Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal 4(2), 123-143.
19. Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Design Studies 15(2), 158-174.
20. Goldstone, R.L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology 46(4), 414-466.
21. Goldstone, R.L., & Son, J.Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences 14(1), 69-110.
22. Hamming, R.W. (1986). You and your research. Proc. Bell Communication Research Colloquium Seminar.
23. Holyoak, K.J., & Cheng, P.W. (1995). Pragmatic reasoning with a point of view. Thinking & Reasoning 1(4), 289-313.
24. Holyoak, K.J., & Thagard, P. (2002). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. In Cognitive Modeling (Polk, T.A., & Siefert, C.M., Eds.), pp. 849-909. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25. Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Mental Models: Toward a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (Holyoak, K., & Morrison, R., Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1993). Constraints on representational change: evidence from childrens drawing. Cognition 34(1), 57-83.
28. Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development 67(6), 2797-2822.
29. Lee, A.S. (2000). Systems thinking, design science and paradigms: heeding three lessons from the past to resolve three dilemmas in the present to direct a trajectory for future research in the information systems field. Proc. 11th Int. Conf. Information Management. Accessed at http://www. people.vcu.edu/- aslee/ICIM-keynote-2000
30. Lee, A.S., & Nickerson, J.V. (2010). Theory as a case of design: lessons for design from the philosophy of science. Proc. 43rd Annual Hawaii Int. Conf. Systems Science.
31. Maher, M.L. (2008). CreativeIT: does IT enhance creativity or does creativity enhance IT? Keynote Address. Proc. Design, Computing, and Cognition Conf.
32. Nickerson, J.V. (2006). Teaching the integration of information systems technologies. IEEE Transactions on Education 49(2), 271-277.
33. Nickerson, J.V., Corter, J.E., Tversky, B., Zahner, D., & Rho, Y. (2008). The spatial nature of thought: understanding information systems design through diagrams. Proc. 29th Int. Conf. Information Systems.
34. Novick, L. (1990). Representational transfer in problem solving. Psychological Science 1(2), 128-132.
35. Novick, L., & Hmelo, C. (1994). Transferring symbolic representations across nonisomorphic problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20(6), 1296-1321.
36. Osborn, A.F. (1963) Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problem Solving, 3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribners Sons.
37. Oxman, R. (1997). Design by re-representation: a model of visual reasoning in design. Design Science 18(4), 329-347.
38. Redmiles, D., & Nakakoji, K. (2004). Supporting reflective practitioners. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. Software Engineering, pp. 688-690.
39. Ross, B.H. (1989). Distinguishing types of superficial similarities: different effects on the access and use of earlier problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15(4), 456-468.
40. Ross, B.H., & Kennedy, P.T. (1990). Generalizing from the use of earlier examples in problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16, 42-55.
41. Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J.L. (1986). Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol.1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Rundus, D., & Atkinson, R.C. (1970). Rehearsal processes in free recall: a procedure for direct observation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 9(2), 99-105.
43. Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Jackson, TN: Basic Books.
44. Schwartz, D.L., & Black, J.B. (1996). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: induction and fallback. Cognitive Science 20(4), 457-497.
45. Simon, H.A. (1995). Problem forming, problem finding and problem solving in design. In Design & Systems (Collen, A., & Gasparski, W., Eds.), pp. 245-257. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
46. Sloman, S.A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 119(1), 3-22.
47. Southey, R. (1837). The story of the three bears. In The Doctor, Vol.4. London: Longman.
48. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies 18(4), 385-403.
49. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (2003). Constructive perception: a skill for coordinating perception and conception. In Proc. 25th Annual Conf. Cognitive Science Society (Alterman, R., & Kirsh, D., Eds.), pp. 1140-1145. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
50. Suwa, M., Tversky, B., Gero, J.S., & Purcell, T. (2001). Seeing into sketches: regrouping parts encourages new interpretations. In Visual and Spatial Reasoning in Design II (Gero, J.S., Tversky, B., & Purcell, T., Eds.), pp. 207-219. Sydney: Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition.
51. Tversky, B., Corter, J.E., Nickerson, J.V., Zahner, D., & Rho, Y. (2008). Transforming descriptions and diagrams to sketches in information systems design. In Diagrams 2008 (Stapleton, G., Howse, J., & Lee, J., Eds.), pp. 242-256. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
52. Visser, W. (1991). Evocation and elaboration of solutions: different types of problem-solving actions. An empirical study on the design of an aerospace artifact. In Cognitiva 90. At the Crossroads of Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science and Neuroscience. Proc. 3rd COGNITIVA Symp. (Kohonen, T., & Fogelman-Soulié, F., Eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
53. Wallach, M.A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of Thinking in Young Children: A Study of the Creativity Intelligence Distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
54. Wason, P., & Johnson-Laird, P. (1972). Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.