Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T00:16:14.977Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Creativity in Design

from Part IV - Creativity in Business

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2017

By
Nathalie Bonnardel  and
Carole Bouchard
Edited by
James C. Kaufman ,
Vlad P. Glăveanu  and
John Baer
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Vlad P. Glăveanu
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Bergen, Norway
John Baer
Affiliation:
Rider University, New Jersey
Get access

Summary

Abstract

This chapter aims at characterizing creativity in design and, thus, creativity that occurs in an area in which there is an increasing need for innovations in our society. Indeed, designers have to satisfy the demand for new products that differ from existing ones. To help designers come up with new ideas leading to new products, it is necessary both to understand the creative process that underlays design activities and to determine appropriate ways to support it. To contribute to these goals, first, we characterize creativity in design and present descriptive models of both creativity and design processes. Then, we describe series of studies that focused on creativity in design, and we discuss ways of assessing creativity in design areas. Finally, we suggest potential orientations for future research in this domain and, especially, methods and computational systems to support creativity in design.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains , pp. 403 - 427
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ansburg, P., & Hill, K. (2003). Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(7), 1141–1152.Google Scholar
Asimov, M. (1962). Introduction to design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bongard-Blanchy, K., Bouchard, C., Bonnardel, N., Lockner, D., & Aoussat, A. (2015). User experience dimensions in product design: A consolidation of what academic researchers know and what design practitioners do. Journal of Design Research, 13(2), 107–124.Google Scholar
Bila-Deroussy, P., Bouchard, C., & Diakite, S. (2015). Addressing complexity in design: a systemic model of creativity and guidelines for tools and methods. International journal of Design and Creativity, 5(1–2), 60–77.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N. (1999). L’évaluation réflexive dans la dynamique de l’activité du concepteur [Reflexive evaluation in the dynamics of the designer’s activity]. In Perrin, J. (Ed.), Pilotage et évaluation des activités de conception (pp. 87–105). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N. (2000). Towards understanding and supporting creativity in design: Analogies in a constrained cognitive environment. Knowledge-Based Systems, 13, 505–513.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N. (2002). Entrée : Créativité [Creativity]. In Tiberghien, G., (Ed.), Dictionnaire des Sciences Cognitives [Dictionary of Cognitive Sciences], (pp. 95–97), Paris: Armand Colin/VUEF.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N. (2006). Créativité et conception: Approches cognitives et ergonomiques [Creativity and design: Cognitive and ergonomic approaches]. Marseille: Solal.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N. (2009). Activités de conception et créativité: De l’analyse des facteurs cognitifs à l’assistance aux activités de conception créatives [Design activities and creativity: From an analysis of cognitive factors to creative design support]. Le Travail Humain, 72, 5–22.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N. (2012a). Designing future products: What difficulties do designers encounter and how can their creative process be supported? Work, A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 41, 5296–5303.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N. (2012b). Cognition and emotion in creative design. In Masmoudi, S., Dai, D. Yun & Naceur, A. (Eds.). Attention, Representation, and Human Performance: Integration of Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation (pp. 187–200), New York: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis Group).Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N. (2016). Propositions de méthodes d’analyse et de modalités d’assistances pédagogique et informatique aux activités créatives. Illustrations dans le domaine du design [Proposals of analysis methods as well as pedagogical and computational ways to support creative activities]. In Capron-Puozzo, I. (Ed.), La créativité en éducation et en formation. Perspectives théoriques et pratiques (pp. 167–180). Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., & Bouchard, C. (2011). Towards supporting creative design: Analysis of the use of the TRENDS system according to designers’ expertise. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition – C&C 2011 (pp. 315–316), Atlanta. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., & Bouchard, C. (2014). Design, ergonomie et IHM: Etudes complémentaires pour favoriser les activités de conception créatives [Design, ergonomics, and HCI: Complementary studies to favour creative design activities]. In Couture, N., Bastien, C., & Dorta, T. (Eds.), Quelle articulation pour la co-conception de l’interaction? Proceedings of the international conference 2014 Ergonomie et Informatique Avancée Conference – ErgoIA’2014 (pp. 33–40), Toulouse, New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., & Cugini, U. (2007). Test Case Evaluation Report. Deliverable 14. Research contract FP6-IST–2002–001996.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., & Didier, J. (2016). Enhancing creativity in the educational design context: An exploration of the effects of design project-oriented methods on students’ evocation processes and creative output. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 15(1), 80–101.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., Didierjean, A., & Marmèche, E. (2003). Analogie et résolution de problèmes [Analogy and problem solving]. In Tijus, C. (Ed.), Métaphores et analogies (pp. 115–149). Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., Forens, M., & Lefevre, M. (2016). Enhancing collective creative design: An exploratory study on the influence of static and dynamic personas in a virtual environment. Design Journal, 19(2), 189–203.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., & Marmèche, E. (2004). Evocation processes by novice and expert designers: Towards stimulating analogical thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13(3), 176–186.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., & Marmèche, E. (2005). Towards supporting evocation process in creative design: A cognitive approach. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 442–435.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., Mazon, S., Wojtczuk, A. (2013). Impact of project-oriented educational methods on creative design Proceedings of the 31st annual Conference of the European Association of Cognitive – ECCE 2013. Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., & Rech, M. (1998). Les sources d’inspiration en conception [Inspiration sources in design]. Sciences et Techniques de la Conception / International Journal of Design Sciences & Technology, 6(1), 37–53.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., Wojtczuk, A., Gilles, P.-Y., & Mazon, S. (in press). The creative process in design. In Lubart, T. (Ed.), The creative process: Perspectives from multiple domains. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bonnardel, N., & Zenasni, F. (2010). The impact of technology on creativity in design: An enhancement? Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 180–191.Google Scholar
Botella, M., Nelson, J., & Zenasni, F. (2016). Les macro et microprocessus créatifs. In Capron-Puozzo, I. (Ed.), La créativité en éducation et en formation. Perspectives théoriques et pratiques (pp. 31–44). Bruxelles: De Boeck.Google Scholar
Bouchard, C. (1997), Modelling the car design process. ENSAM Thesis, Paris: ENSAM.Google Scholar
Bouchard, C., & Aoussat, A. (2002). Design process perceived as an information process to enhance the introduction of new tools. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 31(2), 162–175.Google Scholar
Bouchard, C., Lim, D., & Aoussat, A. (2003). Development of a Kansei Engineering System for Industrial design – Identification of input data for KES, 6th Asian Design International Conference, Tsukuba University.Google Scholar
Bouchard, C., & Aoussat, A. (2003). Modelling the car design process, International Journal of Vehicle Design, 31(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Bouchard, C., Camous, R., Aoussat, A. (2005). Nature and role of intermediate representation (IR) in the design process: Case studies in car design. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 38(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Bouchard, C., Omhover, J.-F., Mougenot, C., Aoussat, A., & Westerman, S. (2008). Trends: A content-based information retrieval system for designers, Third International Conference on Design Computing and Cognition (DCC’08). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.Google Scholar
Bouchard, C., Kim, J., Aoussat, A. (2009). Kansei Information Processing in Design. Proceeding of IASDR’2009. Séoul.Google Scholar
Bouchard, C. Omhover, J.-F. (2016). Supporting early design through conjoint trends analysis methods and the TRENDS system. In Markopoulos, P., Martens, J. B., Malins, J., Coninx, K., & Liapis, A. (Eds.), Collaboration in creative design, methods and tools (pp. 53–72). Switzerland. Springerlink, International Publishing.Google Scholar
Bouchard, C., Omhover, J.-F., Bongard-Blanchy, K., Bonnardel, N., Lockner, D., Dubois, P, & Amaral, E. (2016). Mixing and structuring design-product-process knowledge: Towards a design product process formalism, Submitted to Journal of Engineering Design.Google Scholar
Büsher, M., Frielaender, V., Hodgson, E., Rank, S., & Shapiro, D. (2000). Design on objects: imaginative practice, aesthetic categorisation, and the design of multimedia archiving support. Digital Creativity, 11(3), 161–172.Google Scholar
Bornet, C. & Brangier, E. (2013). La méthode des personas: principes, intérêts et limites. Bulletin de Psychologie, 66(524), 115–134.Google Scholar
Brown, D. C., & Chandrasekaran, B. (1989). Design problem solving. Knowledge structures and control strategies. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Burkhardt, J.-M., & Lubart, T. (2010). Creativity in the age of emerging technology. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 160–166.Google Scholar
Casakin, H. (2007). Metaphors in design problem-solving: Implications for creativity. The International Journal of Design, 1, 23–35.Google Scholar
Casakin, H. (2010). Visual analogy, visual displays, and the nature of design problems: The effect of expertise. Environmental Planning and Design: Design B, 37, 170–188.Google Scholar
Casakin, H., & Kreitler, S. (2005). The nature of creativity in design. In Gero, J. S. & Bonnardel, N. (Eds.), Studying Designers’05 (pp. 87–100). University of Sydney, Sydney.Google Scholar
Casakin, H., & Kreitler, S. (2011). The cognitive profile of creativity in design. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 159–168.Google Scholar
Christiaans, H. (2002). Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 41–45.Google Scholar
Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modeling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15, 217–236.Google Scholar
Chrysikou, E. G., & Weisberg, R. W. (2005). Following the wrong footsteps: Fixation effects of pictorial examples in a design problem-solving task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31, 1134–1148.Google Scholar
Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Cugini, U., & Bordegoni, M. (2007). Touch and design: Novel haptic interfaces for the generation of high quality surfaces for industrial design. The Visual Computer, 23(4), 233–246.Google Scholar
Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437.Google Scholar
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), 113. (Original work published in 1935).Google Scholar
Eastman, C. M. (1969). Cognitive processes and ill-defined problems: A case study from design. Proceedings of the 1st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 669–690). Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Eckert, C. M., & Stacey, M. K. (2000). Sources of inspiration: A language of design. Design Studies, 21(5), 523–538.Google Scholar
Fischer, G. (2011). Understanding, fostering, and supporting cultures of participation. ACM Interactions, XVIII(3), 42–53.Google Scholar
Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Eden, H., Sugimoto, M., & Ye, Y. (2005). Beyond binary choices: Integrating individual and social creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 482–512.Google Scholar
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S.M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Forens, M., Bonnardel, N., & Barbier, M.-L. (2015). How communication modalities can impact group creativity in multi-user virtual environment. Proceedings of the 33rd European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics – ECCE 2015 (pp. 25–28). Warsaw, Poland. New-York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Forens, M., Barbier, M.-L., & Bonnardel, N. (2015). Modalités de communication et créativité en environnement virtuel collaboratif. In Bonnardel, N., Pellegrin, L., & Chaudet, H. (Eds.), Actes du 8ème Colloque de Psychologie Ergonomique – EPIQUE’ 2015 (pp. 175–181). Paris, France: Arpege Science Publishing.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design: Concepts and framework. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9, 435–448.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S. (1998). Towards a model of designing which includes its situatedness. In Grabowski, H., Rude, S., & Grein, G. (Eds.), Universal design theory (pp. 47–56). Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S. (2000). Computational models of innovative and creative design processes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 64, 183–196.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S., & Bonnardel, N. (Eds.). (2005). Studying designers’05. Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S., & Maher, M. L. (1993). Introduction. In Gero, J. S. & Maher, M. L. (Eds.), Modeling creativity and knowledge-based design (pp. 1–6). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Glăveanu, V. P. (2010). Creativity in context: The ecology of creativity evaluations and practices in an artistic craft. Psychology Studies, 55, 339–350.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 123–143.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G., & Tatsa, D. (2005). How good are good ideas: Correlates of design creativity. Design Studies, 26, 593–611.Google Scholar
Hayes-Roth, B., & Hayes-Roth, F. (1979). A cognitive model of planning. Cognitive Science, 3, 275–310.Google Scholar
Halskov, K., & Dalsgaard, P. (2007). The emergence of ideas: the interplay between sources of inspiration and emerging design concepts. CoDesign, 3(4), 185–211.Google Scholar
Hewett, T. T. (2005). Informing the design of computer-based environments to support creativity. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63, 383–405.Google Scholar
Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2000). Creative approaches to problem solving: A framework for change. Buffalo, CPSB.Google Scholar
Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12, 3–11.Google Scholar
Jeffries, K. K. (2012). Amabile‘s consensual assessment technique: Why has it not been used more in design creativity research? Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity (pp. 211–220). Glasgow.Google Scholar
Keller, A. I. (2005). For inspiration only – Designer interaction with informal collections of visual material, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Kelsey, E., Medeiros, P., Partlow, J. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2014). Not too much, not too little: The influence of constraints on creative problem solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 198210.Google Scholar
Kim, J., Bouchard, C., Omhover, J.-F., & Aoussat, A. (2010). Towards a model of how designers mentally categorize design information. CIRP – Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 3(3), 218–226.Google Scholar
Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2001). Modelling creative strategies in creative design. In Gero, J. S. & Mahler, M. L. (Eds.), Computational and cognitive models of creative design V (pp. 205–226), Sydney: University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Lebahar, J.-C. (1986). Le travail de conception en architecture, contraintes et perspectives apportées par la CAO. Le Travail Humain, 49(1), 17–30.Google Scholar
Lubart, T. (2005). How can computers be partners in the creative process? International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 63, 365–369.Google Scholar
Lubart, T., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2003). Psychologie de la créativité. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
McNeill, T., Gero, J. S., & Warren, J. (1998). Understanding conceptual electronic design using protocol analysis. Research in Engineering Design, 10, 129–140.Google Scholar
Maher, M. L., Kim, Y. S., & Bonnardel, N. (Eds.). (2010). Special issue of AIEDAM – Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing on “Creativity: Simulation, Stimulation and Studies,” 24(2).Google Scholar
McDonagh, D., & Denton, H. (2005). Exploring the degree to which individual students share a common perception of specific trend boards: observations relating to teaching, learning and team-based design. Design Studies, 26, 35–53.Google Scholar
Mougenot, C. (2008). Modélisation de la phase d’exploration du processus de conception de produits, pour une créativité augmentée. Ph.D. Thesis. Paris: ENSAM.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, when are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2–3), 107–120.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Reiter-Palmon, R., Uhlman, C. E., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (1988). The design of everyday things. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Osborn, A.F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creativity thinking. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Pruitt, J., & Grudin, J. (2003). Personas: Practice and theory. Proceedings of the conference on designing for user experiences (pp. 1–15). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Purcell, A. T., Williams, P., Gero, J. S., & Colbron, B. (1993). Fixation effects: Do they exist in design problem-solving? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20, 333–345.Google Scholar
Purcell, A. T., & Gero, J. S. (1996). Design and other types of fixation. Design Studies, 17, 363–383.Google Scholar
Rieuf, V., & Bouchard, C. (2017). Emotional activity in early immersive design: Sketches and moodboards in virtual reality, Design Studies, 48, 43–75.Google Scholar
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In Cross, N. (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 135–144). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Restrepo, J., Christiaans, H., & Green, W. S. (2004). Give me an example: supporting the creative designer. In Agger Eriksen, M.., Malmborg, L., & Nielsen, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of Computers in Art and Design Education Conference – CADE2004. Copenhagen Business School, Denmark and Malmö University, Sweden.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. theories and themes: Research development, and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2008). Studying engineering design creativity – Developing a common definition and associated measures. In Gero, J. (Ed.), Studying design creativity (pp. 2–20). Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity. Design Studies, 32, 348–383.Google Scholar
Scheerer, M. (1963). Problem-solving. Scientific American, 208, 118–128.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Setchi, R., & Bouchard, C. (2010). In search of design inspiration: A semantic-based approach, Journal of Computing and Information Science and Engineering, 10(3). DOI:10.1115/1.3482061.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1995). Problem forming, problem finding and problem solving in design. In Collen, A. & Gasparski, W. (Eds.), Design & systems (pp. 245–257). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Stappers, P. J., & Pasman, G. (2001). ProductWorld: An interactive environment for classifying and retrieving product samples. Proceedings of the 5th Asian Design Conference (pp. 1–11). Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. (2007). Incubated cognition and creativity. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 14, 83–100.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, S., & Melles, G. (2010). An activity theory focused case study of graphic designers’ tool-mediated activities during the conceptual design phase. Design Studies, 31, 461–478.Google Scholar
Tichkiewitch, S. (2010). Method and tools for the effective knowledge management in product life cycle. 20th CIRP Design Conference. Nantes.Google Scholar
Treffinger, D. J. (1995). Creative problem solving: Overview and educational implications. Educational Psychology Review, 7, 301–311.Google Scholar
Tversky, B. (2003). Sketching for design and design of sketches. In Lindemann, U. (Ed.), Human behaviour in design (pp. 79–86). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Visser, W. (1994). Organisation of design activities: Opportunistic, with hierarchical episodes. Interacting with Computers, 6, 235–238.Google Scholar
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt-Brace.Google Scholar
Wang, H. (1994). An approach to computer-aided styling: Form creation techniques for automotive CAD. Design Studies, 15(1), 85–114.Google Scholar
Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1–40.Google Scholar
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (1997). Conceptual structures and processes in creative thought. In Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes (pp. 1–27). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Cognition. In Sternberg, R. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189–212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. W., & Alba, J. W. (1981). An examination of the alleged role of “fixation” in the solution of several “insight” problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110, 169–192.Google Scholar
Wojtczuk, A. (2014). Creative product assessment in design: Influence of judges backgrounds and levels of experience in design. Ph.D. thesis. Aix-en-Provence: Aix-Marseille University.Google Scholar
Wojtczuk, A., & Bonnardel, N. (2011). Designing and assessing everyday objects: Impact of externalisation tools and judges’ backgrounds. Interacting with Computers, 23(4), 337–345.Google Scholar
Wojtczuk, A., & Bonnardel, N. (2012). Differences in creative design assessment. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity – ICDC’ 2012. Glasgow, U.K.Google Scholar
Zeisel, J. (1981). Inquiry by design: Tools for environmental behavior research. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×