Mind and method: an examination of cognitive activities in the design process

Abstract

The creative process is a multifaceted and dynamic path of thinking required to execute a project in design-based disciplines (e.g., interior design, architecture). Social scientists have studied stages of the creative process; however, little comparative work has been conducted on the stages of the production process and increased creative design outcomes. This research seeks to understand phases of the creative design process by investigating design student experiences through a project assignment. This study used an exploratory design to collect qualitative data from demographic information, journal responses, and creative product results from college students enrolled in a design studio. The study conceptualized a creative process model based upon comparison and analysis of ten seminal and contemporary creative process models. Models were characterized by number of stages and grouped according to the transitional nexus between analysis and synthesis forming a common baseline. Four distinct categories were revealed based on the number and complexity of stages as: simple, balanced, complex analysis, and complex synthesis. Amabile's (1996) Components of Creativity model encompassing constructs of domain experience, motivation, and creativity-relevant skills was referenced in examining student processes which were then compared to the proposed model. Thirty-six senior level interior design students in a Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) program participated in the assignment. Of these, 34 consented to participate; the final number of participants responding to journal prompts in the time frame requested further reduced the number of participants, resulting in N = 20. Students were asked to design a lounge chair during a two week period and to journal in response to pre-determined question prompts regarding their activities. Using template analysis, codes were derived for task activities. A scaled furniture model and accompanying design process board was reviewed by external evaluators to identify level of creative output. Two distinct groups demonstrated high and low creativity. Tasks, demographic data, and level of creativity were then compared by this criteria and the proposed model reexamined. Demographic data and journal responses illustrated differences between the high and low creativity group. GPAs, transfer credits, and total credit hours were higher for the high creativity group in addition to evidence of higher levels of abstract thought and greater divergent thinking. Students in the high creativity group also demonstrated increased depth in thought and higher motivation throughout their creative process.