CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
A Cross-Disciplines and Cross-Sector Mixed-Methods Examination of Design Thinking Practices and Outcome
Tác giả
Lake D.; Flannery K.; Kearns M.
Năm xuất bản
2021
Source title
Innovative Higher Education
Số trích dẫn
10
DOI
10.1007/s10755-020-09539-1
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
This mixed method study investigated design thinking (DT) practices and outcomes from across disciplinary frameworks within one institution of higher education. Building upon prior DT studies, it examined three interlocking research questions: What DT practices are being implemented across the curriculum? What kinds of outcomes do faculty observe? What are the significant relationships between particular practices and observed outcomes? Thirty-five courses were examined via a faculty survey adapted from Liedtka and Bahr (2019), and a semi-structured interview created by Lake, Ricco, and Whipps (2018). In alignment with liberal arts educational practices, the most frequently utilized DT practices included working in teams that recognize diverse contributions and engaging in active listening in order to find shared meaning. Consistent with expectations for project- and team-based courses, faculty felt such practices yielded valued outcomes, concluding DT practices built trust across teams and increased the quality of solutions. Relationships between practices and outcomes revealed the utilization of more ethnographic tools was associated with a lower frequency of expanding relationships and resources, and that a greater focus on design criteria to find an ideal solution hampered efforts towards trust building. These findings suggest DT requires time and trust which can be constrained by the imposed deadlines of semester-based projects. The survey and interviews pointed to both similarities and differences between disciplines in DT practices. Future research investigating design thinking pedagogy should include faculty, students, and stakeholders with multiple touchpoints for assessment to identify learning experiences that build change-making capacities and yield genuinely valuable and viable real world projects. © 2021, The Author(s).
Từ khóa
Design thinking; Experiential learning; High impact practices; Interdisciplinarity; Mixed model design; Team and Project-based learning
Tài liệu tham khảo
Benson J., Dresdow S., Design for thinking: Engagement in an innovation project, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 13, 3, pp. 377-410, (2015); Braun V., Clark V., Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 2, pp. 77-101, (2006); Brodie R.J., Future of theorizing: Increased contribution by bridging theory and practice, The Routledge Companion to the Future of Marketing, pp. 88-104, (2014); Brown T., Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, (2009); Butler A.G., Roberto M.A., When cognition interferes with innovation: Overcoming cognitive obstacles to design thinking, Research-Technology Management, 61, 4, pp. 45-51, (2018); Calgren L., Elmquist M., Rauth I., The challenges of using design thinking in industry-experiences from five large firms, Creativity and Innovation Management, 25, 3, pp. 344-362, (2016); Campbell D.T., Fiske D.W., Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56, 2, pp. 81-105, (1959); Costanza-Chock S., Design Justice: Community-Led Practices to Build the Worlds We Need, (2020); Crosby A., Fam D., Mellick L.A., Transdisciplinarity and the ‘living lab model’: Food waste management as a site for collaborative learning, Transdisciplinary theory, practice and education, pp. 117-131, (2018); Crouch C., Pearce J., (2012); Elsbach K.D., Stigliani I., Design thinking and organizational culture: A review and framework for future research, Journal of Management, 44, 6, pp. 2274-2306, (2018); Escobar A., Designs for the pluriverse: Radical interdependence, autonomy, and the making of worlds, Duke University Press, (2017); Fernaeus Y., Lundstrom A., Practicing design judgement through intention-focused course curricula, Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 20, 1, pp. 47-58, (2015); The Total Economic Impact of IBM’s Design Thinking Practice, (2018); Inkelas K.K., Jessup-Anger J., Benjamin M., Wawrzynski M.R., Living-learning communities that work: A research-based model for design, delivery, and assessment, (2018); Iskander N., Design thinking is fundamentally conservative and preserves the status quo, Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, pp. 1-9, (2018); Johansson-Skoldberg U., Woodilla J., Cetinkaya M., Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures, Creativity and Innovation Management, 22, 2, pp. 121-146, (2013); Kolko J., The divisiveness of design thinking, Interactions, 25, 3, (2018); Krebs P.M., Next time, fail better, Chronicle of Higher Education, 58, 36, (2012); Kuh G.D., High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter, Peer Review, 14, 3, (2012); Kummitha R.K.R., Institutionalising design thinking in social entrepreneurship: A contextual analysis into social and organizational processes, Social Enterprise Journal, 14, 1, pp. 92-107, (2018); Lake D., Lehman M., Chamberlain L., Engaging through design thinking: Catalyzing integration, iteration, innovation, and implementation, eJournal of Public Affairs, 8, 1, pp. 87-113, (2019); Lake D., Mileva G., Carpenter H., Carr D., Lancaster P., Yarbrough T., Shifting engagement efforts through disciplinary departments: A mistake or a starting point? A cross-institutional, multi-department analysis, Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 21, 3, pp. 135-164, (2017); Lake D., Ricco M., Whipps J., Design thinking accelerated leadership: Transforming self, transforming community, The Journal of General Education, 65, 34, pp. 159-177, (2018); Liedtka J., Perspective: Linking design thinking with innovation outcomes through cognitive bias reduction, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32, 6, pp. 925-938, (2015); Liedtka J., Evaluating the impact of design thinking in action, Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017, 1, pp. 1-6, (2017); Liedtka J., Bahr K.J., Assessing design thinking’s impact: Report on the development of a new instrument. Darden Working Paper Series No, pp. 13-19, (2019); Liedtka J., Hold K., Eldridge J., Experiencing design: The innovator’s journey, Columbia Business School Publishing, (2021); McLaughlin J.E., Wolcott M.D., Hubbard D., Umstead K., Rider T.R., A qualitative review of the DT framework in health professions education, BMC Medical Education, 19, (2019); Micheli P., Wilner S.J., Bhatti S., Mura M., Beverland M.B., Doing design thinking: Conceptual review, synthesis and research agenda, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 36, 2, pp. 124-148, (2019); Miller P.N., Is ‘design thinking’ the new liberal arts?, Chronicle of Higher Education, 61, 29, (2015); Monteiro M., Ruined by design: How designers destroyed the world, and what we can do to fix it, (2019); Ohly S., Pluckthun L., Kissel D., Developing students’ creative self-efficacy based on design thinking: Evaluation of an elective university course, Psychology Learning and Teaching, 16, 1, pp. 125-132, (2017); Panke S., Design thinking in education: Perspectives, opportunities, and challenges, Open Education Studies, 1, 1, pp. 281-306, (2019); Retna K., Thinking about “design thinking”: A study of teacher experiences, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 37, 1, pp. 5-19, (2016); Rittner J., Design education reform: Modeling equity and inclusion in teaching and learning, Design Management Review, 31, 3, pp. 12-22, (2020); Rossmann J.S., Engineering design as a liberal art: A first-semester introduction to design thinking, International Journal of Engineering Education, 32, 3, pp. 1502-1507, (2016); Royalty A., Oishi L.N., Roth B., Acting with creative confidence: Developing a creative agency assessment tool, Design Thinking Research: Understanding Innovation, pp. 79-96, (2014); Seidel V., Fixson S., Adopting “design thinking” in novice multidisciplinary teams: The application and limits of design methods and reflexive practices, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 1, pp. 19-33, (2013); Sheppard B., Kouyoumjian G., Sarrazin H., Dore F., The Business Value of Design., (2018); Verhoef L.A., Et al., Towards a learning system for university campuses as living labs for sustainability, Universities as Living Labs for Sustainable Development. World Sustainability Series, pp. 135-149, (2020); Vink J., In/Visible - Conceptualizing Service Ecosystem Design [Doctoral Dissertation, (2019); Vinsel L., Design thinking is kind of like syphilis—it's contagious and rots your brains, (2017); Wagoner M., Technology against Technocracy: Toward Design Strategies for Critical Community Technology, (2017); Woudhuysen J., The craze for design thinking: Roots, a critique, and toward an alternative. Design Principles and Practices, An International Journal, 5, 6, pp. 235-248, (2011); Wrigley C., Straker K., Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54, 4, pp. 374-385, (2017); Wurdinger S., Qureshi M., Enhancing college students’ life skills through project based learning, Innovative Higher Education, 40, 3, pp. 279-286, (2015)
Nơi xuất bản
Springer Science and Business Media B.V.
Hình thức xuất bản
Article
Open Access
All Open Access; Hybrid Gold Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus