China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Introducing Design Thinking (and Making) for Technical Communication
Published in Jason Chew Kit Tham, Design Thinking in Technical Communication, 2021
At the same time when aspiring designers were studying both the popular American and Scandinavian design models, Austrian-American designer Victor Papanek emerged as a strong advocate of socially and ecologically responsible design in the 1970s. Papanek was known for his integration of anthropological philosophy in his design practices and has contributed to the cross-disciplinary movement in product design.
How Cultural Knowledge Shapes Design Thinking - a Situation Specific Analysis of Availability, Accessibility and Applicability of Cultural Knowledge in Inductive, Deductive and Abductive Reasoning in two Design Debriefing Sessions
Published in Bo T. Christensen, Linden J. Ball, Kim Halskov, Analysing Design Thinking: Studies of Cross-Cultural Co-Creation, 2017
Torkil Clemmensen, Apara Ranjan, Mads B Bødker
Two cultural groups were present in the videos we analysed: Asian consultants and Scandinavian design team members. Out of the five Scandinavian design team members, two were external stakeholders who were not as actively involved in the above videos as the three core designers. The core design team consisted of three designers who from years of collaboration on design projects knew each other well.
How cultural knowledge shapes core design thinking—a situation specific analysis
Published in CoDesign, 2018
Torkil Clemmensen, Apara Ranjan, Mads Bødker
The paper is part of a large case study (Christensen, Ball, and Halskov 2017). The data from the case study contains material from design meetings and co-creation workshops as part of the design processes in a Scandinavian design team’s daily routine. The data consists of 13 h of video and audio recordings with additional pictures and other material. Observations and data collection did not interfere with the normal work routines in the design team. The deliveries of the design team are products and services aimed at the Chinese market and at Chinese lead users. The design case thus comprises real examples of a design process with cross-cultural co-creation as a central component. The design case was made to provide multiple entry points of analysis allowing researchers a wide range of analytic options (Christensen and Abildgaard 2016).
Fluctuating epistemic uncertainty in a design team as a metacognitive driver for creative cognitive processes
Published in CoDesign, 2018
Bo Thomas Christensen, Linden J. Ball
Our current analysis made use of ethnographic design data stemming from the Design Thinking Research Symposium 11 (Christensen, Ball, and Halskov 2017), and focused on the extent to which uncertainty arising specifically from cross-cultural interpretation elicits creative design reasoning—both in the short-term (e.g. engendering localised analogising and mental simulation) and in the longer term (influencing downstream creative processes and decision-making). To address this issue we examined those parts of the data-set that involved the Scandinavian design team comprehending and analysing a large set of lead-user generated post-it notes written in Chinese. Our overarching assumption was that uncertainties in the interpretation of these post-it notes (pre-inventive structures) would be likely to promote creative processes and subsequent returns to information, eventually predicting what information would be extracted by the team to be taken forward.
Psychological factors surrounding disagreement in multicultural design team meetings
Published in CoDesign, 2018
Susannah B. F. Paletz, Arlouwe Sumer, Ella Miron-Spektor
One question is whether these findings are due to the introduction of new, South-East Asian team members who have different linguistic styles, or due to changes in behaviour by the core Scandinavian design team. We created versions of our variables only summed for the Scandinavian participants from the original, core team: number of conflict turns per segment and number of insight, reward and risk words from turns spoken by these individuals (A, D, E, K and N, or ADEKN). Choosing only segments where at least one word was spoken by these individuals (N = 465), we ran similar negative binomial regressions with the log of the non-zero total of the ADEKN words as the offset variable and the social context — diverse or less so — as the main predictor variable. Per cent female was not significant with this limited sample, and team size almost entirely confounded the multicultural variable, so these analyses were run without any covariates. For these individuals, there was no difference between the multicultural team meetings and the Scandinavian team meetings for number of conflict turns overall, insight words or risk words.7 However, there was a significant difference in reward words, such that these same Scandinavians used more promotion words when in the presence of their South-East Asian colleagues and later in their processes (multicultural M = 0.02, SE = 0.001; Scandinavian-only M = 0.01, SE = 0.001), B = 0.56 (−0.32, 0.80), SE = 0.12, Wald χ2 = 21.17, Exp(B) = 1.75 (1.38, 2.22), p < 0.001. Given the sparsity of data, these findings are simply suggestive; but they imply that some, though not all of the study’s overall findings may be due to differences in the styles of individuals and cultures present in the team. In other cases, the team members themselves may be changing their behaviour because of the social context.