Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:42:57.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis Designers' Process of Insight Generation through Empathy with Users

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 May 2022

A. Ito ,
Y. Taoka  and
S. Saito
A. Ito*
Affiliation:
Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
Y. Taoka
Affiliation:
Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
S. Saito
Affiliation:
Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan
*
ssrg.tokyotech@gmail.com

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.

This study aims to investigate the good way to generate insight through empathy with users. The fifteen experiment participants drew thinking processes of understanding users and defining insight statements while generating insight statements based on a given interview transcript. The thinking processes were assessed by qualitative coding, and the insight statements were evaluated. The results identified the types of thinking that should be avoided when gaining insights. This paper proposes a framework to categorise designers’ process of gaining insight.

Keywords

design thinkingproblem solvinginsightempathydesign cognition
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 2: DESIGN2022 , May 2022 , pp. 891 - 900
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), 2022.

References

Bracewell, R.H. and Wallace, K.M. (2003), “Capturing design rationale”, Computer Aided Design, Vol. 41 Issue 3, pp. 173–186. 10.1016/j.cad.2008.10.005Google Scholar
Chang-Arana, Á.M., Piispanen, M., Himberg, T., Surma-aho, A., Alho, J., Sams, M. and Hölttä-Otto, K. (2020), “Empathic accuracy in design: Exploring design outcomes through empathic performance and physiology”, Design Science, Vol. 6 No. 16, 10.1017/dsj.2020.14Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2001), “Chapter 5 - Design Cognition: Results from Protocol and other Empirical Studies of Design Activity”, In: Eastman, C.M., McCracken, W.M. and Newstetter, W.C. (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp. 79–103. 10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50005-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Design Council. (2015), “The design process: What is the double diamond” [online] The Design Council. Available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond (Accessed 21.02. 2022).Google Scholar
Dorst, K. (2011), “The core of 'design thinking' and its application”, Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 521–532. 10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G (2014), Linkography, MIT Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, J.L. and Fila, N.D. (2016), “The manifestation of empathy within design: findings from a service-learning course”, CoDesign, Vol. 12 No. 1-2, pp. 93–111. 10.1080/15710882.2015.1135243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolko, J. (2010), “Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design Synthesis”, Design Issues, MIT Press, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 15–28. 10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15Google Scholar
Kouprie, M. and Visser, F.S. (2009), “A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user's life”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 437–448. 10.1080/09544820902875033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kundel, H.L. and Polansky, M. (2003), “Measurement of observer agreement”, Radiology, Vol. 228 No. 2, pp. 303–308. 10.1148/radiol.2282011860CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, D. and Rayport, J.F. (1997), “Spark innovation through empathic design”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 102–113.Google ScholarPubMed
Lewrick, M., Link, P. and Leifer, L. (2018), The Design Thinking Playbook: Mindful Digital Transformation of Teams, Products, Services, Businesses and Ecosystems, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Smeenk, W., Sturm, J. and Eggen, B. (2019), “A Comparison of Existing Frameworks Leading to an Empathic Formation Compass for Co-design”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 53–68.Google Scholar
Walther, J., Miller, S.E. and Sochacka, N.W. (2017), “A Model of Empathy in Engineering as a Core Skill, Practice Orientation, and Professional Way of Being”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 123–148. 10.1002/jee.20159Google Scholar
Yuan, S.-T.D. and Hsieh, P.-K. (2015), “Using association reasoning tool to achieve semantic reframing of service design insight discovery”, Design Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 143–175. https://10.1016/j.destud.2015.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar