Inspiration peak: Exploring the semantic distance between design problem and textual inspirational stimuli

International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 215-232

  Gonçalves, Milene ^a   Cardoso, Carlos ^a   Badke Schaub, Petra ^a  

^a Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Creativity; Inspiration; Originality; Semantic distance; Textual stimuli

Indexed keywords

EID: 85018217916     PISSN: 21650349     EISSN: 21650357     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2013.799309     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Amabile, T. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
2. Banks, W. P., & Flora, J. (1977). Semantic and perceptual processes in symbolic comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 278–290.
3. Cai, H., Do, E., & Zimring, C. (2010). Extended linkograph and distance graph in design evaluation: An empirical study of the dual effects of inspiration in creative design. Design Studies, 31, 146–168.
4. Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2009). Design fixation on non-verbal stimuli: The influence of simple vs rich pictorial information on design problem solving. Proceedings of IDETC/CIE 2009, ASME 2009 (pp. 1–8). San Diego, CA.
5. Chiu, I., & Shu, L. H. (2007). Using language as related stimuli for concept generation. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing, 21(2), 103–121.
6. Chiu, I., & Shu, L. H. (2012). Investigating effects of oppositely related semantic stimuli on design concept creativity. Journal of Engineering Design, 23(4), 271–296.
7. Christensen, B., & Schunn, C. (2007). The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: The case of engineering design. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 29–38.
8. Dong, A. (2006). Concept formation as knowledge accumulation: A computational linguistic study. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 20, 35–53.
9. Eastman, C. (2001). New directions in design cognition: Studies of representation and recall. In C. Eastman (Ed.), Knowing and learning to design: Cognition in design education (pp. 1–46). Atlanta, GA: Elsevier.
10. Fu, K., Chan, J., Cagan, J., Kotovsky, K., Schunn, C., & Wood, K. (2012). The meaning of ‘near’ and ‘far’: The impact of structuring design databases and the effect of distance of analogy on design output. Proceedings of the ASME 2012 international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference IDETC/CIE 2012 (pp. 1–12).
11. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45–56.
12. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.
13. Goldschmidt, G., & Sever, A. (2010). Inspiring design ideas with texts. Design Studies, 32(2), 139–155.
14. Gonçalves, M., Badke-Schaub, P., & Cardoso, C. (2011). Searching for inspiration during idea generation. IASDR2011, the 4th world conference on Design Research.
15. Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2011). Around you: How designers get inspired. Proceedings of international conference on engineering design, ICED’11.
16. Guilford, J. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
17. Hanington, B. (2003). Methods in the making: A perspective on the state of human research in design. Design Issues, 19(4), 9–18.
18. Henderson, K. (1999). Chap. 1 On line and on paper: Visual representations, visual culture, and computer graphics in design engineering (pp. 1–14). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge MIT Press.
19. Hornby, A. (2000). Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary of current English (S. Wehmeier Ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Howard, T., Culley, S., & Dekoninck, E. (2011). Reuse of ideas and concepts for creative stimuli in engineering design. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(8), 565–581.
21. Jansson, D., & Smith, S. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11.
22. Liikkanen, L. A., & Perttula, M. (2006). Contextual cueing and verbal stimuli in design idea generation. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design computing and cognition’06 (1st ed, pp. 619–631). Dordrecht: Springer.
23. Malaga, R. (2000). The effect of stimulus modes and associative distance in individual creativity support systems. Decision Support Systems, 29(2), 125–141.
24. Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232.
25. Mohammad, S. (2008). Measuring semantic distance using distributional profiles of concepts (PhD Thesis), University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
26. Mougenot, C., & Wanatabe, K. (2010). Verbal stimuli in design creativity: A case study with Japanese sound-symbolic words. In T. Taura & Y. Nagai (Eds.), Design creativity 2010 (pp. 231–238). London: Springer Verlag.
27. Muller, W. (1989). Design discipline and the significance of visuo-spatial thinking. Design Studies, 10(1), 12–23.
28. Nagai, Y., & Noguchi, H. (2002). How designers transform keywords into visual images. Proceedings of C&C’02 creativity and cognition, Loughborough, UK.
29. Neumann, A., Badke-Schaub, P., & Lauche, K. (2009). Show me what you’ve got – The influence of combined sketching on idea. In M. Norell Bergendahl, M. Grimheden, L. Leifer, P. Skogstad, & U. Lindemann (Eds.), Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, ICED09 (pp. 191–198). Stanford, CA, August 2009.
30. Paivio, A. (1975). Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye. Memory & Cognition, 3, 635–647.
31. Paivio, A. (1978). Mental comparisons involving abstract attributes. Memory & Cognition, 6, 199–208.
32. Pasman, G. (2003). Designing with precedents. (PhD thesis). TU Delft, The Netherlands.
33. Perttula, M., & Liikkanen, L. (2006). Exposure effects in design idea generation: Unconscious conformity or a product of sampling probability? In M. þór Jónsson & R. Unnþórsson (Eds.), NordDesign 2006 (pp. 1–14). Iceland: Reykjavik.
34. Plucker, J., & Beghetto, R. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. Sternberg, E. Grigorenko & J. Singer (Eds.), Creativity – From potential to realization (pp. 153–168). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
35. Purcell, T., & Gero, J. (1992). Effects of examples on the results of a design activity. Knowledge- Based Systems, 5(1), 82–91.
36. Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). The effect of representation of triggers on design outcomes. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 22, 101–116.
37. Simon, H. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–190.
38. Sturgell, I. (2008). Touchstone texts: Fertile grounds for creativity. Reading Teacher, 61(5), 411–414.
39. Wang, A. Y. (2012). Exploring the relationship of creative thinking to reading and writing. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7(1), 38–47.
40. Ware, C. (2008). Visual thinking: For design. Burlington, MA: Elsevier (Morgan Kaufmann).
41. Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1953). The measurement of individual differences in originality. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 362–370.
42. Zahner, D., Nickerson, J. V., Tversky, B., Corter, J. E., & Ma, J. (2010). A fix for fixation? Representing and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24(2), 231–244.