How Should We Measure Creativity in Design Studies? A Comparison of Social Science and Engineering Approaches
How Should We Measure Creativity in Design Studies? A Comparison of Social Science and Engineering Approaches
复制标题
DOI：
10.1115/detc2020-22446
复制
发表时间：
2020-08
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Scarlett R. Miller;Samuel T. Hunter;Elizabeth Starkey;S. Ramachandran;Faez Ahmed;M. Fuge
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Scarlett R. Miller;Samuel T. Hunter;Elizabeth Starkey;S. Ramachandran;Faez Ahmed;M. Fuge
设计研究人员长期以来一直试图了解支持创造性想法发展的机制。然而，设计界面临的一个关键挑战是如何有效地衡量创造力的模糊结构。社会科学和工程界采用了两种截然不同的方法来解决这个问题，这两种方法都被部署在整个工程设计研究中。本文的目的是比较和对比这两种方法，使用近1000个工程设计理念的设计评级与专家评级的定性研究配对。本研究的结果表明，虽然这两种方法提供了类似的评级的想法质量，有一个统计上显着的负相关关系，这些方法的评级的想法新奇性。从专家评分员的出声思考概念映射的录音定性分析点的分歧的潜在来源。此外，结果表明，虽然准专家和专家评分提供了类似的评级的设计新奇，有没有显着的协议，这些群体之间的评级设计质量。本研究的结果为工程设计研究中创意评级的部署提供了指导，并为工程设计创造力指标的开发和潜在修改提供了证据。
Design researchers have long sought to understand the mechanisms that support creative idea development. However, one of the key challenges faced by the design community is how to effectively measure the nebulous construct of creativity. The social science and engineering communities have adopted two vastly different approaches to solving this problem, both of which have been deployed throughout engineering design research. The goal of this paper was to compare and contrast these two approaches using design ratings of nearly 1000 engineering design ideas paired with a qualitative study with expert raters. The results of this study identify that while these two methods provide similar ratings of idea quality, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between these methods for ratings of idea novelty. Qualitative analysis of recordings from expert raters’ think aloud concept mapping points to potential sources of disagreement. In addition, the results show that while quasi-expert and expert raters provided similar ratings of design novelty, there was not significant agreement between these groups for ratings of design quality. The results of this study provide guidance for the deployment of idea ratings in engineering design research and evidence for the development and potential modification of engineering design creativity metrics.