26

WhyAreTheyAbleto‘DesignThinking?’:FramingADesigner’sPracticalIntelligenceLinkedtoTheirThinking,ActingandAttitude TakuoAndo1andSatoruGoto21FacultyofBusinessAdministration,ToyoGakuenUniversity.takuo.ando@tyg.jp2CollegeofBusinessAdministration,RitsumeikanUniversity.

Abstract:Thisstudyaimsatexploringthetheoreticalfoundationofdesignthinking,especiallyfromtheperspectiveofadesigner’spracticalintelligencelinkedtotheirthinking,acting,andattitude.Fromthemiddleofthe2000’s,manyeffortstoapplydesignthinkingtobusinesseshavebeenmade. The reasonwhydesign thinking isuseful forbusiness is that someof itsaspectsareconsideredtopromoteinnovation.Whilerisingsuchabusinesssidemovement,designresearchershavetriedtodeconstructdesignthinkingforalongtime(e.g.Rowe,1987;Cross,2011).The‘designerlythinking’discourserevealedthatthecoreofthiskindofthinkinglies in the ‘abductive reasoning’, relying on a complex cognitive activity called, ‘reframing’(Dorst,2011).Reframingis,‘shiftingsemanticperspectiveinordertoseethingsinanewway’,(Kolko, 2010: p.17). It requires a unique mindset that constantly updates not only theknowledgeandskills,butalsoitsown‘being’(Adamsetal.,2011).Whileunderstandingdesignthinkingisimportant,creatingordiscoveringaframeworkthatguidesthedesigners’practicalintelligence (Strenberg&Wagner, 1992) including their situated action, learning style andattitude,tounderstand,‘whytheyareabletoindulgeinsuchathinking’,ismorecrucial.Inthisstudy,weattemptedtocreateatheoreticalframeworkthat linkstheirthinking,acting,andattitude,throughaliteraturereview.

IntroductionFrom the middle of the 2000’s, there have been many efforts to apply design thinking (DT) tobusinesses.DTis,‘bringingdesigners’principles,approaches,methods,andtoolstoproblemsolving’,(Brown,2008).Thereasonwhyithasbeenintroducedtobusinesssoaggressivelyisthedemandfornewwaysofthinkingthatisunbiasedtowardsaconvergentapproach(Boland&Collopy,2004;Martin,2009).Inthefieldofmanagement,thereisaneedtobuildambidextrousorganisationsthatrealisenotonly efficient management, but also innovation (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Some scholars haveadoptedthisuniqueaspectanddevelopeditasabusinessbuildingtool(Brown,2009;Liedtka&Ogilvie,2011),andothershaveattemptedtoapplythattomanagement-relatededucation(Boland&Collopy,2004).Designthinkingisnowconsideredasthenewwayofthinkingthatwillleadthecurrentstagnantsituationtoanidealsustainablefuture.Ontheotherhand,somescholarscriticisethelackofclarityaboutwhatDT‘is’,andthediscussionofDT in management discourses has no theoretical foundation (Carlgren, Rauth & Elmquist, 2016;Johansson-Skölberg,Woodilla&Çetinkaya,2013;Kimbell,2011).Indeed,mostresearchersdefineit

27

from their own original perspectives (e.g. ‘integrative thinking’ (Martin, 2007; 2009), ‘human-centeredness’(Brown, 2009), ‘thinking out of the box’ (Kolko, 2011)), with no references to theacademicdesigndiscourse.While rising such a business side movement, design researchers have tried to unpack ‘designerlythinking’foralongtime(e.g.Rowe,1987;Cross,2011). Inthisdesignerlythinkingdiscourse, itwasrevealed that the core of this thinking is, ‘abductive reasoning’, relying on ‘reframing’, which is acomplexcognitiveactivity(Dorst,2011).Reframingistheactof‘shiftingsemanticperspectiveinordertoseethingsinanewway’,(Kolko,2010:p.17)requiringauniquemindsetthatconstantlyupdatesnotonlyknowledgeandskillsbutalsoitsown‘being(Adamsetal.,2011)’.Ofcourseunpackingdesignerlythinkingisimportant,butthemoreimportantthemeistocreateaframeworkthatguidesthedesigners’entire‘practicalintelligence’(Strenberg&Wanger,1992)includingtheirsituatedaction,learningstyleandattitude,toanswer,‘whyaredesignersabletothinkinsuchauniquemanner’.Inthisstudy,wetakethechallengetocreateatheoreticalframeworkthatlinkstheirthinking,actingandattitude,throughaliteraturereview.

Literature e ie

el te at e e Adamsetal (2011)emphasised that ‘the ideaof design thinking has typically representedwhatdesigners understand about design and how they go about the act of designing based on thisunderstanding’(Adamsetal ,2011:p. 88).Toframetheconceptofadesigner’spracticalintelligence,wefirstneedtofocusontheactof‘designing’.InDesignstudies,manyscholarspointedoutthatoneofitsuniqueaspectsisitsprocessof‘problem-solving’(Simon,1969;Buchanan,1992; atchuel,2001).Whiletraditionalrationalproblem-solvinghasahighdeterminacyfortheproblemitselfandaone-waynatureofrunningfromaproblemtoasolution(Simon,1969),theproblemsdealtwithindesign,areopen-endedandhighlyindeterminate.Somecallthem‘ill-structured’(Simon,1973)problems,andotherstermthem,‘wicked’(Rittel,1972;Buchanan,1992)problems.Theso-called‘designproblem’(Dorst,2006)hasauniqueaspectthathasnotbeendiscussedfromtherationalproblem-solvingperspective.Forexample, atchuel (2001)arguedthattheproblemsdealtwith, in the real design situation have an ‘extended rationality’, compared to Simon’s ‘boundedrationality’( atchuel,2001). epicturedthedifferenceinthetwotypesofproblem-solvingfromtheusualactivitiesonaSaturdaynight,whereinonegroupofpeoplesearchfor‘agoodmovie’intownandanothergroupplans‘aniceparty’.Theformer,dealswithawell-definedconcept(‘amovie’)andcouldchoosefromalternativesalreadyprovided.Thelatter,needstonotonlychoose,butalsocreatetheconceptitselfowingtothelackofadominantnotionof,‘whatapartyshouldbelike’.Dorst(2006)termedthisnatureofsuchdesign-relatedproblemsthatarehardtoidentifyas,‘paradox’.Aparadoxisacomplexstatementthatconsistsoftwoormoreconflictingstatements(Dorst,2006:14).Inarealdesignsituationthus,creatingasolutionalsoincludesredefiningaproblematicsituation.

t e le e e Tosolveadesignproblem,whatshoulddesignersdo Cross (2006) described a designer’s unique problem-solving approach as the, ‘designerly ways ofknowing’. This phrase indicates that the designer’s way of tackling problems especially follows a

28

solution-focused mode of problem-solving. Through a continuous interaction with the practicalsituation,designersbuildtheirknowledgewithdirectreferencetotheexperienceandmakedecisionsforthenewlyencountereddesigncontext(Cross,2006).Somescholarsexplainthisknowledgeusingthemetaphorofa‘gambit’(Lawson,2006).Inachessgame,agambitistheopeningmovetogainanadvantagebysacrificingpieces.Inthecaseofdesign,thisisnotthebeginningofthewholeprocess,but rather the starting point of the thought process of which aspects of the design need to behighlighted(Lawson,2006:176).Designislikechesswithendlessmoveswhere,unlikechess,designneitherhasafixedboardsi enoralimitednumberofpieces(Lawson&Dorst,2009:180).Throughtheprocessof‘learning-while-doing’,designersconstantlychangeandadjusttheirwaysofacquiringinformation,whichsignificantlyimpactsthefuturedesigndecisions(Cross,2011).Manystudieshaveshownthatdesignersdonotworkontheirowndesignproblemsina‘tabularasa’manner,butdrawknowledgefromtheirexperiences(Darke,1979;Rowe,1987;Lawson,2006).Thiskindofknowledgeiscalledthe‘guidingprinciple’(Lawson,2006),whichisanunderpinningtheoryofdesign,basedonsomekindofmoralcertainty.Thisalsoincludesthestrongintellectualprogrammesbehindtheirworkincludingtheirownmotivations,reasonsforwantingtodesign,setsofbeliefs,valuesandattitude(Lawson,2006:1 9).Thecontentoftheguidingprincipleisasdiverseastheindividualdesignersandvariesaccordingtotheiracquiredexperiences.Some other scholars echo this notion as the ‘primary generator’ (Darke, 1979) or the ‘organi ingprinciple’(Rowe,1984).Thedesignerformsthefirstideaorinterpretationatthebeginningofadesignproblem.Aprimarygeneratorisaprinciplethatisappliedatthestartingpointofadesignactivityandindicatestheabilitytojustifydesigndecisionsfromarationalperspective(Darke,1979).Incontrast,organisingprinciplesleaveavastscopeforcreatingnumerousideasinthelaterdesignprocess(Rowe,1984).Thus,thedesignersaccumulateprinciplesfromtheirprofessionalexperience,called‘workingprinciples’(Dorst,2010). Thesetwotypesofknowledgeareessentialindealingwithhighlyuncertainproblemsituations,andthisshowsthatdesignisdifficultonlywiththedoctrinaireapproach.

el te at e e e l t Asmentionedabove, inadesigner spractice,twotypesofknowledgeareemployed:(1)designerlywaysofknowing,and(2)workingprinciple.Byapplyingthese,theycoulddealwithcomplexproblems.This is called ‘synthesis’ in design studies,which is a process combiningmarketneeds, technologytrends,andclientneedsinanorganisedform(Kolko,2010).

owdodesignersthinkwhileutilisingtheprocessofsynthesis Severalstudieshavedescribedthisas‘reasoning’ (Roo enburg,199 ;Martin,2009;Dorst,2010;Kolko,2010),andespecially in the formcalled‘abduction’.Generally,therearethreeinferencetypes:‘deduction’,‘induction’,and‘abduction’. Deduction is, deriving specific knowledge from a general principle or a universal knowledge. Forexample,theso-called‘trilogy’.Incontrast,inductionimpliesderivingcommonhypothesesbylistingcertainobservablefacts.Abductionisalogicalformofinferenceor,‘bestguess’leaps(Kolko,2010).eircesimplyexplainsabductionusingthefollowingexample:

a a t e l a e a e a l et e e t a t e te t et e la t e e e e et e ea e a e e t la a t e t e e e

In addition, Dorst (2011) pointed out that there are two forms of abduction reasoning in designthinking.Oneformreflectsthe‘problem-solving’aspectofthedesign.Inthiscase,thedesignersknowboth, theworkingprinciple ( ow)andthevalue thatshouldbeobtained (theconnectionbetween

29

thesetwoiscalled‘frame’,indesignresearch(Dorst,2010:132)).Therefore,theframeisappliedtotheproblemtofindthemostsuitablesolutionbytrialanderror(abduction1).Theotheristhereasoningthatisappliedwhenonlythevaluethatshouldbeobtained,isclear. Inthiscase,whatneedstobecreatedandtheworkingprinciplesgeneratingthevalue,areunclear.Undersuchcircumstances,abduction1andthecreationofaworkingprinciplemustbeappliedatthesametime(abduction2).Thus,designpracticeisdonebythe‘co-evolution’ofboth,theproblemspaceandthe solution space (Maher& oon, 1996; Cross, 1997; Dorst & Cross, 2001). This dual creation isconsideredasbeinguniquetodesignerlythinking.In addition, the core process in this second form of abduction is, ‘reframing’ (Dorst, 2010; 2011).According toKolko (2010), ‘reframing is amethodof shifting semanticperspective inorder to seethingsinanewway’,where,‘thenewframe re-embeds aproduct,system,orserviceinanew(andnotnecessarilylogical)context,allowingthedesignertoexploreassociationsandhiddenlinkstoandfromthecentreoffocus’(Kolko,2010:23).AsSchön(1984)statesthatthe,‘hypothesisdependsonanormativeframingofthesituation,asettingofsomeproblemtobesolved’(Schön,1984:132),thekeytodesignerlythinkingliesinthecreationofanewframetocapturetheproblemsituationsproperly(Figure1).

Figure1:Designerlythinkingprocessfromthepreviousresearch

Whereisthe roblem?

a et e a let e Summarising theabovediscussion, indesignpractice,designersapply two typesofknowledge: (1)designerly ways of knowing, and (2) working principle. By using these two types of knowledge,designerscandealwithcomplexproblemsituations. Inaddition,thesetofaworkingprincipleandavalueisappliedinthinking,formingahypothesisfromabductionreasoningandtheexaminationofthatbydeduction,wouldbeperformed.Iftheproblemissimilartowhatthedesignershavealreadyexperienced, they could apply the frames immediately. Otherwise, the second form of abductionwouldwork.Kolko(2010)statesthatthe,‘designsynthesisisfundamentallyawaytoapplyabductive

30

31

and themodesandstyles thathavebeensharedamongsocialgroups.According toBourdieu, thenormssuchasrules,faithorconvictiondonotgeneratethepractice,buttheschemasinscribedinthebody,do.Theseembodiedschemasthataccumulatewithinanindividualthroughpastexperiencesofacertaingrouporclass,shapestheirwayofthinking,perception,andactionunconsciouslylikea‘senseofgames’(Bourdieu,1979).Thus,thedispositionorhabitusassociatedwithpracticalintelligenceareembodiedintheindividuals,and in the designers. Indeed, many aspects of a designer's practice depend on their practicalintelligence.Larson(2006)explainsthispointusingtheexampleofanarchitect.‘Theartistisnotsomeonewhodesignsinordertoprovehisorhertheory,andcertainlynottosuitanideology…anybuildingthattriesmerelytoexpressatheoryoranybuildingthatstartswithatheoryandworksverydeductivelyisverydry,sowesaythatweworkinductively(Lawson,2006:p.163)’.Weconsidertheseembodieddispositionstobeoneoftheworkingprinciplesthatconstantlygeneratesimprovisation inan individual,whilebeingregulatedbystructuresandrigidconstraints.Moreover,theseaspectsenabledesignerstoupdatethemselvescontinuouslyandmaintaintheircreativeloop.Thison-goingopenness (McDonnell,2011)oruniquemindset thatconstantlyupdatesnotonly theknowledgeandskills,butalsothedesigner’sown‘being’(Adamsetal.,2011)areimportantfactorsenabling design thinking.However, this embodied disposition or intellectual system is not easy tounderstandbecauseitnotonlyincludesclearknowledgesuchas,aboutobjectives,factualinformation,butalsothemotivations,beliefs,values,andattitudes(Lawson,2006).

TheideaofDesignattitudeHowcouldwetheorisethedesigner’spracticalintelligence?Tofilingtheabovetheoreticalgap,wefocuson ‘Design attitude’.According toBoland&Collopy (2004),who first proposed the concept,Designattitudeis,‘theexpectationandorientationonebringstodesignproject(BolandandCollopy,2004:9)’and theeffectiveattitudeandbehavioural characteristics relating tosolving ill-structuredproblems.Inaddition,accordingtoMichlewski(2008;2015),thedesignattitudeistheculture,values,beliefs,and thementalmodels sharedbydesignprofessionals. In addition, he states that the culture andbeliefsthatthedesignerspossessaresharedbyprofessionals,enteringvariouscompaniesandtakingtheformofonesubculture.InMichlewski’sresearch,heproposedfiveelementsofdesignattitude:(1)embracinguncertaintyandambiguity;(2)engagingdeepempathy;(3)embracingthepowerofthefivesenses; (4)playfullybringing things to life; (5) creatingnewmeaning fromcomplexity (Michlewski,2008; 2015). Table 1 summarizes the concept and the items of design attitude from the previousliterature(Table1).AccordingtoAmatullo(2015),theimportanttheoreticalinfluenceontheuseoftheword‘attitude’inthe conceptualisation of design attitude is related to Bourdieu's ideas of the practice theory andhabitus(Amatullo,2015:p.114).Theseconceptualisationsnotonlyimplyanintrospectivepositionondesign(Simon,1969;Schön,1983),butalsotheflowof importantresearchonthe issuesofdesignagency,identity,andmorals(Buchanan,1992,1998;Margolin&Buchanan,1995).Researchontheconceptofattitudehasdifferentperspectives,lackingaunifiedviewexceptthatitisan implicit personal characteristic (Banaji et al., 2001). However, the practice generated from thedispositionliessomewherebetweentheunconventionalembodiedactsandtheactswithoutthought.

32

Table1:TheseveralconceptofdesignattitudeLiterature BolandandCollopy

(2004)�ManagingasDesigning”

Michlewski(2015)�DesignAttitude”

Amatullo(2015)�Designattitudeandsocialinnovation”

ConceptandDefinition

“Expectationsandorientationsonebringstoadesignproject”

“Characterofaprofessionalcultureshapedbydesigners”

“Asetofabilitiesthatimpactinnovationandorganizationallearning”

Attribute DesignattitudeforManaging

DesignattitudeforOrganizationalLearning

DesignattitudeforSocialInnovation

Itemsofdesignattitude

InventionofnewalternativeQuestioningofassumptionResolvetocontributetohumanbetterment

1)EmbracingUncertaintyandAmbiguity2)EngagingDeepEmpathy3)EmbracingthePoweroftheFiveSenses4)PlayfullyBringingThingstoLife5)CreatingNewMeaningsfromComplexity

1)ConnectingMultiplePerspective2)Creativity3)Empathy4)EngagementwithAesthetics5)AmbiguityTolerance

Discussion:TheTheoreticalFrameworkofaDesigner’sPracticalIntelligenceThisisatheoreticalframeworkofadesigner’spracticalintelligencederivedfromtheabovediscussion(Figure3).Thismodelconnectedtheperspectivesondesignthinkinganddisposition,especiallyfromthediscussionaboutdesignattitude.Asaforementioned,inthedesignthinkingprocessofabduction2(Dorst,2010),thedesignersshouldfindaworkingprinciplebyreframing.Theskilleddesignerisableto carry out this highly complicated thinking, continuouslywith an ongoing openness (McDonnell,2011)oruniquemindsetthatconstantlyupdates itsown‘being’ (Adamsetal.,2011).Withoutthismindset,thedesigner'suniquethinkingisnottriggered.Thediscussionondesignattitudebringsseveralelementstolight.Forexample,‘ambiguitytolerance’,is anattitude that reflects thedesigner's ‘optimism’ (Brown,2009).Designers realise that creatingsomethingnoveldoesnotguaranteesuccess. Atrulycreativeprocess isnotcontinuous,butrathercomplexandcumbersome. Theyfeelcomfortablegettingthroughmultifacetedandcomplexrealitieswithoutrelyingontheprocessandframeworkthatisseeminglyperfect.Thisattitudeenablesthemtogainnewknowledgeandconfidence.One of the other features of design attitude is, ‘engaging deep empathy’. Designers challenge toredefinetheframeworkofusers,clients,andthesocietybyconfrontingthephenomenonwithhumility.Throughthe interactionwithvariousstakeholders, theydefinetheproblem.Theydon’tpretendtoknowalltheanswersaboutusersandrelyontools.Instead,theyrelyontheirintuitiontosympathisewithpeopleasdeeplyaspossible.Thisattitudemakesitpossibletoidentifythevaluetheyshouldaimfor(Michlewski,2015).‘Connectingmultipleperspectives’,reflectsadesigner’sapproachtocomplexity.Designersharmonisediversecontradictoryviewpointsandinformation,leadingtoacompletelynovelperspectiveonthings.

33

This attitude helps the designer in finding connections to different things at different levels andgenerateavaluablenewnetwork(Michlewski,2015).

Figure3:Themodelofdesigner’spracticalintelligence

Thus,adesigner’spracticeissupportedbynotonlytheirthinking,butalsotheirattitude.Normally,itisconsideredthatrepeatingsuchacreativeloopisaccompaniedbydifficultiesduetothebiasesandtendenciesshapedbyroutinework.Forexample,‘anchoring’and‘confirmationbias’haveaninfluenceon‘analogyreasoning’,whichisproximatetoabductionreasoning(Gavetti&Rivkin,2005).Anchoringindicatesthatitisdifficulttowipeoutfixedideasinhumanthinking.Thisbiascreatesthepossibilitytoretrievetheproblemsourcethatcorrespondsto their fixed ideas,without tryingtogainadeepempathytowardsnewproblemsituations.Confirmationbiasindicatesthetendencytoseekonlythatinformationwhichaffirmsone’sownideas.Italsohasbeenpointedoutthatthetendencytocollectfavourable evidence and hide the inconvenient evidence affects the success of analogy reasoning(Gavetti&Rivkin,2005).ThisisclosetotheargumentofdoublelooplearninginArgyrisandSchön(1978).Single-looplearningisalearningbehaviourthatmodifiesactionswithinarangeofbasicassumptionswhentheresultofanaction does not match the expected one. Double-loop learning, on the other hand, is a learningbehaviourthatmodifiesnotonlythebehaviour,butalsobasicvalues(Argyris&Schön,1978).Itisalsoclosetotheargumentofthe‘technicalrationality’modelcriticisedbySchön(Schön,1983). Thetechnicalrationalitymodelemphasisesontherationalityoftechnicalknowledgegeneratedbyaspecific professional occupation. Schön (1983) criticised that, in highly specialised groups, whilestandardisedknowledgeconstructedbyhierarchisingitsexpertiseandlearninghadbeenemphasisedon, the knowledge of the ‘defining problem’ had been ignored. He also argued that hierarchisingcultivatedthewrongattitudewhichtriestosolveaproblembyapplyingstandardisedknowledgetoasituation(Schön,1983).Inanycase,thiscreativeloopbeinggeneratedfromadesigner’spracticalintelligencesupportedbytheembodieddisposition(orattitude),greatlyinfluenceddesignthinking.

34

ConclusionThisstudyexploredthetheoreticalfoundationofdesignthinking,especiallyfromtheperspectiveofthe‘practicalintelligence’linkedtothedesigner’sthinking,acting,andattitude.Theliteraturereviewshapedthediscussionaboutthedesigninganddesignerlythinking.Indesignpractice,thedesignersapplytwotypesofknowledge:designerlywaysofknowingandworkingprinciple.Byusingthesetwotypesofknowledge,thedesignerscandealwithcomplexproblems.On the thinking front, the combination of a working principle and a value is applied, forming ahypothesis from abduction reasoning and the examination of that through deduction would beperformed. In addition to the above discussion, we introduced another perspective on practicalintelligencebyincludingthediscussionofdisposition,habitusanddesignattitude.Finally,weproposedanintegratedmodelthatexplainsadesigner’sentirepracticalintelligencemodel,connectingdesignthinkingandattitude.Thus,thisstudyprovidesaframeworktounderstandadesigner'spractice,better.However,itisnotclear how each element of design attitude (e.g. ‘ambiguity tolerance’, ‘engaging deep empathy’,‘connectingmultipleperspective’)influencestheirthinkingprocessinentiretyorinparts.Inaddition,thereisaneedtoclarifytherelationshipbetweendesignthinkingandotherelements(e.g.‘embracingthepowerofthefivesenses’,‘engagementwithaesthetics’).JohnDewey,anearlytwentiethcenturyphilosopherandeducatoroncestated,that ifonechooseseitherofthetwonamely,‘havingtherightattitudetoreasoning’and‘knowingthewayofreasoning’,oneshouldchoosetheformer.However,Deweyalsoemphasisedthatgoodthinkingpeopleusuallypossessabalancebetweenattitudeandknowledge.Inourfuturework,wewillbefocusingonhowthedesignersacquireandupdatethesetwofactors.

AcknowledgementThisworkwassupportedbytheJapanSocietyforthePromotionofScience[grantnumber18K01803]and[grantnumber19H01536].ReferencesAdams,R., Daly,S., Mann, L. & Dall’Alba,G. 2011. Being a Professional: Three Lenses into Design

Thinking,Acting,andBeing.DesignStudies,32,588-607.Anderson,J.R.1983.Thearchitectureofcognition.HarvardUniversityPress.Amatullo,M.2015.DesignAttitudeandSocialInnovation:EmpiricalStudiesontheReturnofDesign.

DoctoralDissertation.WeatherheadSchoolofManagement,CaseWesternReserveUniversity.Argyris,C.&Schon,D.(1978).OrganizationalLearning:Atheoryofactionperspective.Addison

Wesley.Banaji,M.R.,Roediger III,H.,Nairne, J.,Neath, I.,&Surprenant,A.2001. Implicitattitudescanbe

measured. In H. L. Roediger III, J. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. Surprenant (Eds.). The nature ofremembering:EssaysinhonorofRobertG.Crowder:117-150.AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Boland,J.,RichardJ.2011.OnManagingasDesigning.InR.Cooper,S.Junginger,&T.Lockwood(Eds.),TheHandbookofDesignManagement:532-537.Berg.

Boland,J.,RichardJ,&Collopy,F.2004.Managingasdesigning.StandfordUniversityPress.Bourdieu,P.1979.LaDistinction:CritiqueSocialedujugement.ÉditionsdeMinuit.Brown,T.2008.DesignThinking.HarvardBusinessReview,86(6),84-92.

35

Brown, T. 2009. Change by Design. How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and InspiresInnovation.HarperCollins.

Buchanan,R.1992.WickedProblemsinDesignThinking.DesignIssues,8(2),5-21.Christiaans,H.&Dorst,K.1992.AnEmpiricalstudyintoDesignThinking.DelftUniversityPress.Cross,N.1997.DescriptiveModelsofCreativeDesign:ApplicationtoanExample.DesignStudies,18

(4),439.Cross,N.2006.DesignerlyWaysofKnowing.SpringerVerlag.Cross,N.2011.DesignThinking.Berg.Carlgren,L.,Rauth,I.&Elmquist,M.2016.FramingDesignThinking:TheConceptinIdeaandEnactment.

CreativityandInnovationManagement,25(1),38-57.Darke,J.1979.Theprimarygeneratorandthedesignprocess.DesignStudies,1(1),36-44.Dorst,K.2006.�Designproblemsanddesignparadoxes.DesignIssues,22(3):4-17.Dorst,K.2010.TheNatureofDesignThinking.DTRS8InterpretingDesignThinking:DesignThinking

ResearchSymposiumProceedings,131-139.Dorst,K.2011.Thecoreof‘designthinking’anditsapplication.DesignStudies,32(6),521-532.Dorst,K.&Cross,N.2001.CreativityintheDesignProcess:Co-evolutionofProblem-Solution.Design

Studies,22(5),425-437.Duncan,R.G.&Hmelo-Silver,C.2009.Editorial:learningprogressions:aligningcurriculum,instruction,

andassessment.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,46(6),606-609.Dunne, D. & Martin, R. 2006. Design Thinking and How it will Change Management Education.

AcademyofManagementLearning&Education,5,512–523.Ericsson,K.A.(Ed.).1996.Theroadtoexcellence:Theacquisitionofexpertperformanceintheartsand

science,sports,andgames.LawrenceErlbaumAssociate.Ericsson,K.A.2001.Attainingexcellencethroughdeliberatepractice:insightsfromthestudyofexpert

performance.InM.Ferrari(Ed.).Thepursuitofexcellenceineducation:21-55.Erlbaum.Gavetti,G.&Rivkin,W.2005.HowStrategists really think:TappingthePowerofAnalogy,Harvard

BusinessReview,83,54-63.Hatchuel,A.2001.TowardsDesignTheoryandExpandableRationality:Theunfinishedprogrammeof

HerbertSimon,JournalofManagementandGovernance,5(3-4),260-273.Johansson-Skölberg,U., Woodilla, L. and Çetinkaya,M. 2013. Design Thinking: Past, Present and

PossibleFutures.CreativityandInnovationManagement,22(2),121-146.Kolko,J.2010.AbductiveThinkingandSensemaking:TheDriversofDesignSynthesis.DesignIssues,

26(1),15-28.Kolko, J.2011.ExposingTheMagicofDesign:APractitioner’sGuide to theMethodsandTheoryof

Synthesis.OxfordUniversityPress.Kimbell,L.2011.RethinkingDesignThinking:PartI.DesignandCulture,3(3),285-306.Lawson,B.1979.Cognitivestrategiesinarchitecturaldesign.Ergonomics,22,59-68.Lawson,B.2004.Schemata,gambitsandprecedent:Somefactorsindesignexpertise.DesignStudies,

25(5),443-457.Lawson,B.2006.HowDesignersThink:TheDesignProcessDemystified(4thed.).Elsevier/Architectural

Press.Lawson,B.&Dorst,K.2009.DesignExpertise.Routledge.Liedtka,J.,&Ogilvie,T.2011.DesigningforGrowth:ADesignThinkingToolKitforManagers.Columbia

UniversityPress.

36

McDonnell,J.2011.Impositionsoforder:Acomparisonbetweendesignandfineartpractices.DesignStudies32,557-572.

Martin, R. 2007. The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win through Integrative Thinking.HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Martin, R. 2009.TheDesign of Business:WhyDesign Thinking is theNext CompetitiveAdvantage.HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Maher,M.L&Poon, J.1996.ModelingDesignExplorationasCo-evolution.Microcomputers inCivilEngineering11(3),195-209.

Michlewski,K.2008.UncoveringDesignAttitude:InsidetheCultureofDesigners,OrganizationStudies,29,373-392.�

Michlewski,K.2015.DesignAttitude.GowerPublishingLimited.O'Reilly,C.A.,&Tushman,M.L.2013.Organizationalambidexterity:Past,present,andfuture.TheAcademyofManagementPerspectives,27(4),324-338.

Peirce,C.S.1970.CollectedPapersofCharlesSandersPeirce:I-VI,Hartshorne,C.andWeiss,P.(Eds.)TheBelknapPress.

Ryle,G.1984.TheConceptofMind.UniversityofChicagoPress.Rittle,H.1972.SonofRittelthink.DesignMethodGroup5thanniversaryreport.Roozenburg,N.F.M.&EekelsJ.1995.ProductDesign:FundamentalsandMethods.Wiley.Rowe,P.1987.Designthinking.MITPress.Schön,D.A.1983.TheReflectivepractitioner:HowProfessionalsthinkinaction.BasicBooks.Schön,D.A.1984.Problems,FramesandPerspectivesonDesigning,DesignStudies5(3),132-136.Simon,H.A.1973.Thestructureofill-structuredproblems.InCross,N.(Ed.)Developmentsindesignmethodology:145-166,JohnWiley&Sons.

Simon,H.A.1969.TheScienceofArtificial.MITPress.Strenberg, R.J. & Wagner, R.K. 1992. Tacit Knowledge: An Unspoken Key to Managerial Success.CreativityandInnovationManagement,1,5-13.