Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T04:16:56.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Part of: Design Creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Laura Hay ,
Alex Duffy  and
Madeleine Grealy

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Keywords

Design cognitionCreativityEvaluation
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 389 - 398
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Beaty, R.E., Benedek, M., Silvia, P.J. and Schacter, D.L. (2016), “Creative Cognition and Brain Network Dynamics”. Trends Cogn. Sci., Vol. 20, pp. 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2015.10.004Google Scholar
Benedek, M., Jauk, E., Fink, A., Koschutnig, K., Reishofer, G., Ebner, F. and Neubauer, A.C. (2013), “To create or to recall? Neural mechanisms underlying the generation of creative new ideas”. Neuroimage Vol. 88, pp. 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.11.021Google Scholar
Benedek, M., Schües, T., Beaty, R.E., Jauk, E., Koschutnig, K., Fink, A. and Neubauer, A.C. (2018), “To create or to recall original ideas: Brain processes associated with the imagination of novel object uses”. Cortex Vol. 99, pp. 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CORTEX.2017.10.024Google Scholar
Brown, D. (2014), Problems with the Calculation of Novelty Metrics, in: Proc. Design Creativity Workshop, 6th Int. Conf. on Design Computing and Cognition (DCC'14).Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. and Khadilkar, P. (2003), “A measure for assessing product novelty”. Int. Conf. Eng. Des. ICED'03.Google Scholar
Dinar, M., Shah, J.J., Cagan, J., Leifer, L., Linsey, J., Smith, S.M. and Hernandez, N.V., (2015), “Empirical Studies of Designer Thinking: Past, Present, and Future”. J. Mech. Des. Vol. 137, pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4029025Google Scholar
Duffy, A.H.B. and O'Donnell, F.J. (1998), “A Design Research Approach, in: Critical Enthusiasm - Contributions to Design Science. Tapir”, Trondheim, pp. 33–40.Google Scholar
Finke, R.A., Ward, T.B. and Smith, S.M. (1992), “Creative Cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications”. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; London, England.Google Scholar
Fiorineschi, L., Frillici, F.S. and Rotini, F. (2018), “Issues Related To Missing Attributes in a- Posteriori Novelty Assessments”, in: International Design Conference - Design 2018. pp. 1067–1078. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0118Google Scholar
Hay, L., Duffy, A.H.B., McTeague, C., Pidgeon, L.M., Vuletic, T. and Grealy, M. (2017a), “A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: Design as search and exploration”. Des. Sci. Vol. 3, pp. 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.11Google Scholar
Hay, L., Duffy, A.H.B., McTeague, C., Pidgeon, L.M., Vuletic, T. and Grealy, M. (2017b), “Towards a shared ontology: A generic classification of cognitive processes in conceptual design”. Des. Sci. Vol. 3, pp. 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.6Google Scholar
Jin, Y. and Chusilp, P. (2006), “Study of mental iteration in different design situations”. Des. Stud. Vol. 27, pp. 25–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.06.003Google Scholar
Kaufman, J.C., Baer, J., Cole, J.C. and Sexton∗, J.D. (2008), “A Comparison of Expert and Nonexpert Raters Using the Consensual Assessment Technique”. Creat. Res. J. Vol. 20, pp. 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802059929Google Scholar
Liikkanen, L.A. and Perttula, M. (2010), “Inspiring design idea generation: insights from a memory-search perspective”. J. Eng. Des. Vol. 21, pp. 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820802353297Google Scholar
Nelson, B.A., Wilson, J.O., Rosen, D. and Yen, J. (2009), “Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”. Des. Stud. Vol. 30, pp. 737–743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.07.002Google Scholar
Shah, J.J., Smith, S.M. and Vargas-Hernandez, N. (2003), “Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness”. Des. Stud. Vol. 24, pp. 111–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00034-0Google Scholar
Simonton, D.K. (2017), Big-C Versus Little-c Creativity: Definitions, Implications, and Inherent Educational Contradictions, in: Creative Contradictions in Education. Springer, Cham, pp. 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21924-0_1Google Scholar
Sluis-Thiescheffer, W., Bekker, T., Eggen, B., Vermeeren, A. and De Ridder, H. (2016), “Measuring and comparing novelty for design solutions generated by young children through different design methods”. Des. Stud. Vol. 43, pp. 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.DESTUD.2016.01.001Google Scholar
Sosa, R. and Gero, J.S. (2005), A computational study of creativity in design: The role of society. AI EDAM Vol. 19, pp. 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S089006040505016XGoogle Scholar
Srivathsavai, R., Genco, N., Hölttä-Otto, K. and Seepersad, C.C. (2010), “Study of Existing Metrics Used in Measurement of Ideation Effectiveness”, in: Volume 5: 22nd International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; Special Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise. ASME, pp. 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2010-28802Google Scholar