Talk:Design thinking/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Abductive reasoning

Does anyone understand abductive reasoning or know how it relates to design thinking. I found the section of it in our article (Design thinking#Abductive reasoning) to not explain anything. The linked article (Abductive reasoning) is opaque and makes no mention of design. The two references in our article appear not to be available online.

I note that @Drfederico attempted to explain the connection in this edit, but that most of that edit was undone by @Biogeographist in this edit.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I explained why I reverted Drfederico's edit in the edit summary of my edit that Yaris678 linked to above. The major unacceptable flaw in that edit was the conflation of abduction and IBE, which is especially unacceptable in the context of design thinking. The article by Kolko that is cited in this article is available to read online and gives an explanation of the relevance of abductive reasoning to design. A search for "design thinking" + "abductive" OR "abduction" on Google Scholar shows that the term abduction/abductive reasoning is widely used in discussions of design thinking, so there should be a clearer explanation of it in this article, but Drfederico's edit was not good. All claims should be sourced, and abduction should not be conflated with IBE in the context of design thinking. Biogeographist (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just done a Google Scholar search. Lot's of hits, but things still aren't exactly clear. e.g.

• Serat (2017) looks like it is saying abduction is inference of the best explanation, which is is what you are saying it is not.
• Dorst (2011) has some illustrations in section 1 that effectively say "its like induction, but where you know less". It also distinguishes between a result and value, which seems like a meaningless distinction to me.
• Dorst (2010) has the same illustrations and distinction as Dorst (2011) but then defines abduction as "solution focused thinking" (on page 133), which is something else we cover in our article, in the subsection immediately before abductive reasoning.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Serat (2017) cited above is an excellent example of conflating abduction and IBE, which is exactly what we don't want to do. Drfederico can't be blamed for such a conflation because it is rampant in the literature. You might ask: Well, if the conflation is so rampant in the literature then how do you know it's wrong? It's wrong because those who distinguish between abduction and IBE have strong argumentation and historical evidence supporting the distinction. (I pointed to references about this in my edit summary.) Putting the distinction as simply as I can: abduction is just the invention of plausible ideas, while IBE is the selection of the best explanatory idea from a set of explanatory ideas. Notice that IBE is different in a couple of ways: it's about selecting the best idea, and it's about selecting from explanatory ideas, explanations. But abduction, most relevant for design thinking, is not necessarily about explanatory ideas but can be about functional ideas: ideas about what will work. This is my understanding off the top of my head; obviously whatever goes into the article would need to be more precise and based on a reliable source. Biogeographist (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Notice that Jon Kolko's article "Abductive thinking and sensemaking: drivers of design synthesis" (2010), cited in this Wikipedia article, has a paragraph stating: "Instead, abduction can be thought of as the argument to the best explanation" (italics in original). But then the next sentence states: "It is the hypothesis that makes the most sense given observed phenomenon or data and based on prior experience." Suddenly between these two sentences the subject changes from "the best explanation" to "the hypothesis that makes the most sense"! (A hypothesis is not necessarily an explanation!) And the idea of a "best explanation" never arises elsewhere in the article. What seems to have happened here is that in one sentence Kolko parroted someone else's conflation of abduction and IBE even though it doesn't really fit his own (more appropriate) account of abduction as the invention of plausible hypotheses. Biogeographist (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep in mind that many discussions of abductive reasoning (including much of what is in the Wikipedia article Abductive reasoning) are by people who are concerned with the natural sciences. Much of the purpose of the natural sciences is explaining natural phenomena. In contrast, much of the purpose of design and engineering is constructing things. (Of course, natural scientists become designers or engineers when they need to construct things to do experiments that will help them test their explanations of natural phenomena, and designers and engineers become natural scientists when they need to explain some unexplained natural phenomenon before they can construct something.) So, as I said above, much of abductive reasoning in design will be about what will work for constructing things, and not all of what has been written about abductive reasoning in the natural sciences will be relevant; this is especially true of the conflation of abduction and IBE. Biogeographist (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for this discussion. I agree that the comment on abductive reasoning in the article is very brief and doesn't explain anything, but it is there only as part of a short list of 'core features of design thinking'. Perhaps it could be improved, but I think that a much longer explanation of abductive reasoning would not be appropriate, either at that point or elsewhere in the article. I didn't find the Serat source very helpful, and other sources in the design literature can certainly gloss over fine differentiations. Someone who I think does understand abductive reasoning and how it relates to design thinking is Norbert Roozenburg. In his paper 'On the pattern of reasoning in innovative design' Roozenburg says that Peirce 'subsumed' two forms of abductive reasoning: explanatory and innovative. It is innovative abduction that is used in (innovative) designing. Nigel Cross (talk) 11:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, which seems congruent with what I was trying to say above. As usual, I agree with what Nigel Cross says.

Another example of an article that differentiates between types of abduction, although the article is not about design thinking, is: Minnameier, Gerhard (2017). "Forms of abduction and an inferential taxonomy". In Magnani, Lorenzo; Bertolotti, Tommaso (eds.). Springer handbook of model-based science. Springer handbooks. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 175–195. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-30526-4_8. ISBN 9783319305257. OCLC 987910975. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) In section 5 of the article, Minnameier differentiates between "creative versus selective abduction", "factual versus theoretical abduction", and "explanatory versus non-explanatory abduction".

By the way, one can talk about the "abductive" aspect of design thinking without using the term "abduction" or "abductive reasoning". Perhaps the only good reason to use those terms when discussing design thinking is because one wants to relate design thinking to philosophical or formal logic (as in the Roozenburg article). Biogeographist (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

References

I was the one who proposed the change to Abductive Reasoning that was reverted by @Biogeographist:. I agree with @Yaris678: that the section needs improvement (inc. a real world example).

So I'm proposing revision of the (Design thinking#Abductive reasoning) section. My proposed revision is in my sandbox: User:Drfederico/sandbox/abductive-reasoning I would appreciate comments before I upload it.

Further Comments: Here we are one hundred years after Charles S. Peirce lived. Yes, abductive reasoning and IBE (inference to best explanation) may have been conflated. We conflate them because through practice we understand more today. I believe that Abductive reasoning and IBE are part of the same thinking process. Is the former a component of the latter, or vice versa?. @Biogeographist is being a bit pedantic, me thinks :-).

More and more Design Thinkers are using our page to learn. It should be useful for example for budding Design Thinking Coaches. We must explain AR and DT to the reader and give an example of how Design Thinkers use it.

Nigel Cross is right in referring to the need for 'core features of design thinking' in this article. For example, we do not yet have a section on Design Thinking and Perception. Drfederico (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, what can I say in response to Drfederico's stated opinion that I am being pedantic? I would prefer to be pedantic than to be confused! The material in User:Drfederico/sandbox/abductive-reasoning is just as poor as Drfederico's first edit that I reverted, and if the sandbox material is added to this article, I will duly revert again. @Drfederico: Instead of just making stuff up, why don't you try to summarize carefully and succinctly the sources that are already cited in Design thinking § Abductive reasoning, with each sentence that you write carefully referenced to a specific page number in a source so as to avoid original research (which is prohibited in Wikipedia), while also keeping in mind the important distinctions between abduction and IBE made in sources already cited in my edit summary and in the discussion above, sources such as "On the distinction between Peirce's abduction and Lipton's inference to the best explanation" (Campos 2011), "How did abduction get confused with inference to the best explanation?" (Mcauliffe 2015), and "Forms of abduction and an inferential taxonomy" (Minnameier 2017). It's not enough just to write whatever you believe is true; you also have to understand and address legitimate objections that have been raised by other editors. As John Stuart Mill famously wrote, "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that." Biogeographist (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it would be kind if someone just edited my proposed revision in the spirit of improvement.

I would like to suggest that some of the sections in the DT article need expansion. For example, Reframing is one sentence long. There are also missing sections, for example, Design Thinking and Perception.

If you don't mind, I'd like to reveal that I am part of the Wiki Education Scholars & Scientists Program to improve High Importance articles. It's time to improve this page up to at least Good status on Wikipedia. Drfederico (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Drfederico: This talk page section is about Design thinking § Abductive reasoning, so if you want to discuss a different section of the article or the article as a whole, it would be a good idea to create a new talk page section for that discussion.

I think the material in your sandbox needs to be completely rewritten; I don't see a way to salvage it through incremental editing. Above Nigel Cross and I differentiated between different kinds of abductive reasoning. I used the terms 'explanatory' and 'functional'; Nigel (citing Roozenburg) used the terms 'explanatory' and 'innovative'. I think both of us were pointing toward the same distinction. (This distinction corresponds to one of the two dimensions of forms of abduction in Minnameier's article cited above: his domains of reasoning, rather than his levels of abstraction.) Both your edit to this article that I reverted and the current material in your sandbox are too focused on 'explanatory' abduction: this is barking up the wrong tree. The focus (in an article on design thinking) should be on innovative/functional abduction. Here is what I consider to be a clear statement of innovative/functional abduction from another recent source (a source which also has the benefit of being empirical rather than just theoretical research):

Drawing on the works of Peirce (1980), inferences in design are described as being driven by abductive reasoning (Dorst, 2011; Roozenburg, 1993), meaning that design activity begins by hypothesising desired outcomes or functions, and it moves towards proposing forms and structures that can realise such desired outcomes. Pertaining to the processes involved in design, different models describe the activity as comprising stages that begin by formulating initial hypotheses to propose desired functions followed by the generation of probable behaviours and solutions to such functions, involving evaluation and reflection on which solutions are suitable for the desired function (March, 1976; Schön, 1991). Such processes involve both abductive, deductive and inductive reasoning; they are learning processes that do not follow strict abductive-deductive-inductive sequences (March, 1976).

— Cramer-Petersen, Claus L.; Christensen, Bo T.; Ahmed-Kristensen, Saeema (January 2019). "Empirically analysing design reasoning patterns: abductive-deductive reasoning patterns dominate design idea generation" (PDF). Design Studies. 60: 39–70 (39–40). doi:10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.001. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Here is another way to approach the task of improving the section on abductive reasoning: Leave the existing two sentences as they are, or largely as they are. (Right now, there appears to be consensus about those two sentences. If there is not consensus about those two sentences, then it would be wise to begin by reaching consensus on what the first two sentences should say before proceeding to add more sentences. But I will presume for the moment that there is consensus about those two sentences.) Then add a third sentence: "Norbert Roozenburg defined innovative abduction as..." Then add a fourth sentence with an example of innovative abduction from Roozenburg or from some other article in a design journal. Those four sentences may be sufficient. Biogeographist (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should point out that Cramer-Petersen, Christensen & Ahmed-Kristensen (2019), which I cited above, at one point make the same mistaken invocation of IBE as in Kolko (2010). Above I said that it seems that Kolko parroted someone else's conflation of abduction and IBE even though it doesn't really fit his own (more appropriate) account of abduction. Cramer-Petersen, Christensen & Ahmed-Kristensen (2019, p. 42) did exactly the same thing: equated abduction and IBE in one sentence even though it doesn't fit what they are saying. At the end of a long paragraph describing innovative/functional abduction, they slip up and say: "Thus, abduction is also termed as the inference to the best explanation because it involves a particularly promising conjecture (Roozenburg, 1993; Schurz, 2007)." But just as I said above in Kolko's case that A hypothesis is not necessarily an explanation!, likewise a conjecture is not necessarily an explanation. They should have called it inference to the best functional solution, because that is what they were describing, not IBE. As in Kolko's article, IBE is only mentioned (inappropriately) in one sentence in the whole article and never mentioned again. Biogeographist (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Drfederico: I agree that the article could be improved, but unfortunately I don't think it is possible just to "edit your proposed revision in the spirit of improvement", because it doesn't provide anything robust enough to edit.

This article has had a long, sometimes contentious history (see this Talk), often because of confusion between two interpretations of design thinking, which are now represented by the two primary sections of the article. The long history has also gradually improved the article, moving it away from unsubstantiated commentary and opinion. Unfortunately, I think your proposed revision would reverse that trend.

The two interpretations of design thinking are 1. 'how designers think': cognitive, strategic and practical aspects of designing, and 2. the application of 'design thinking' for innovation in business ("entrepeneurship"?) and social contexts.

The article Intro makes this clear.

Part 1 (As a process for designing) has brief, specific statements on some aspects that are claimed to be important in design cognition. It explicitly draws on published research and seems to be a good fit with the expected standards of Wikipedia.

Part 2 (As a process for innovation) has longer/looser statements outlining a process guide to innovation by design thinking.

Your proposed entry disrupts the structure of Part 1, offering a longer presentation of abduction that is out of place here. (Perhaps could belong in Abductive reasoning?)

Unfortunately, your proposal is also poorly constructed and presented. Its opening sentence, 'New ideas arise when a designer observes facts that do not fit existing conceptions', is a form of opinion statement out of the blue, lacks clarity and seems unrelated to the activity of designing.

Your proposal uses a weak presentation style, with unsubstantiated claims of how 'new ideas arise' or that 'designers often question'; claims design proposals as 'testable hypotheses' (as others have noted, design proposals are not like scientific hypotheses, so the comparison/language is inappropriate and misleading); uses a lot of loose expressions such as 'pains and frustrations', 'educated guess', 'a phenomenon for which there is no clear explanation' (again, that doesn't sound like designing). Overall, your proposal would be a classic example of a poor entry in Wikipedia, providing little more than personal, unsubstantiated commentary.

Your example of finding an explanation for torn paper does not relate in any way to design thinking, and is not a relevant example.

Finally, where is your evidence for "More and more Design Thinkers are using our page to learn" and why should the article have the goal of providing a guide for "budding Design Thinking coaches"? No serious educator should rely on Wikipedia articles for their teaching. Nigel Cross (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

design praxeology

Any object contributes to our understanding of actual reality in which we participate as actors, specifying its typical expressions, such as, for example, the use of the right cookware in order to cook a meal. Given that the shape of an object is always determined by its relation to the practical purposefulness it is called to serve, it is reflected in the applications of use and its beneficial results.

In the context of this praxeological interpretation, any simple or composite object in the world obtains their identity only through this internal relation with practical use that is made by human activity. It is not easy to identify an activity that does not include any objects with another activity that includes one. Any use of an object self-produces an internal relationship with the user, whether they act or introduce an activity, which is an empirical test in changeable reality. Therefore the attempt to define a design concept in practice is forced to rely on a system of practical skills. Based on this premise, the necessity of praxeology is understood as the science that studies the relationship of the creator with the subject of his idea as an autonomous gnostic entity with a grandiose content that goes beyond the limits of our empirical perception, enriching human intellect and our relationship with the objective reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indesignstudium (talk • contribs) 19:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Origin of design thinking: theoretical grounding and construct clarity

Dear all, I am new here and learning the rules and regulations. I hereby apologhies for my earlier mistakes. No bad intention. I have been work on a detailed history on Design Thinking ove the last three years with a particular focus on addressing two criticism:

 1. Identifying evidentially the theoretical foundations of design thinking - various scholars criticised the lack of theory 
 2. Providing construct clarity - various scholars criticied the lack of clarity 

In a very recent published peer-reviewed paper (Journal of Product Innovation Managment), we address these criticisms through a historical review.

1. We identified that today's "Design Thinking" is based on the Theory of Productive Thinking first introduced by Otto Selz (1922), Karl Duncker (1935/45), Max Wertheimer (1945), J.P. Guilford (1950), Rudolf Arnheim (1954; 1969). For example, Simon (1969) and Eastman (1970) refers to Selz (1922) and De Groot (1946) - De Groot basis his work in Decision Making in Chees on Sel'z worj. John E. Arnold and Robert McKim refere to "Produtctive Thinking" by Guilford and Wertheimer. Lawson (1972) refers to Wertheimer, Guilford, and Bruner et al. In the Paper: The Origin and Evolution of Stanford's Design Thinking we outline parts of this (the Stanford path) and clearly show that the theoretical foundtation of Design Thinking is Productive Thinking. --> This adds (on an evidential account) to the current article that Design Thinking is not based upon "Creative Methods in the 1950s" but Psychology of Productive / Creative Thinking as early as the 1920s (e.g., Selz) and 1930s (e.g., Duncker).

2. While there is a debate of what Design Thinking is, e.g., a culture, creative inquiry, imaginative act, and cognitive processes (Buchanan 2015), we show that Design Thinking is actuall all of them. We show this through a document analysis of courses taught and writings (again only the Stanford perspective - however there are similar aspects in other Lawson (1972; 1980) provides a cognitive perspective, while Buchanan (1992) discusses the cultural challenges). We show that over 50 years of development there are different "design qualities" that are consistant throughout the various design practices developments (including Product Design, Smart Product Design, Interaction Design, Experience Design, BioDesign, ...). These "Design Qualities" are Thinking Modes (Perception, Imagining, Expressing & Evaluating), Attitudes & Values (e.g., questioning), Attributes (Problem sensitivity, Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and Human Values), Abilities (e.g., visual, communication, collaboration), Blocks (e.g., perceptual, emotional, cultural), Activities & Practices (e.g., Need-finding, Visualiztion, Prototyping), TEchniques (e.g., Brainstorming), Environment (e.g., culture of help, psychological safety). --> This firstly provides evidence that the construct: Design Thinking is cognitive, practical, cultural, and organizational. Seondly, it provides construct clarity.

Paper here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpim.12594?af=R — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeDesignPractice (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a preprint article behind a paywall, so I do not have access to it. A reference to it was added by CreativeDesignPractice but reverted by me and MrOllie as inappropriate self-citation. However, some of point 1 above could be added without reference to the preprint article, assuming that other earlier sources are available. Much of point 2 seems rather obvious to me, although I imagine that the exposition in the preprint article is interesting—it's too bad that I don't have access to the article. Biogeographist (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Biogeographist I can provide a version in an email AND yes, happy to make these edits without citing the preprint as I really want to add to a much needed clarity around the concept of Design Thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeDesignPractice (talk • contribs) 00:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia anonymously, so unfortunately I do not have a way to receive email from other editors, put perhaps another editor will accept your email offer. Biogeographist (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Biogeographist Unfoartunetly the academic world works in journals and related business models. Nothing I can change and this is why wiki is so important. The data analysis (supporting information) is free available here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1111%2Fjpim.12594&file=jpim12594-sup-0001-Appendix.docx

Yes - business models, indeed! Thanks for drawing attention to your article, even if your edits were a bit clumsy. For the time being, so as far as Wikipedia is concerned, only a few people might be able to access it and cite anything in it. The paper looks interesting (I have not read it yet) and may well offer something to add to the Wikipedia entry, although, as you say, it is very strictly limited to developments at Stanford up to 2005. But joining the historical links back to early psychology writings on creative thinking is helpful. I think the design creativity techniques from the 1950s and 60s were influential in setting up the concept of design thinking, but they almost certainly were in turn developed from earlier psychology literature. I agree with Biogeographist that your Point 2 doesn’t seem that radical, but I think the paper clearly will be a contribution to (some of) the history of design thinking.

You are obviously keen to get it cited in Wikipedia, but citation in Wikipedia is not a great academic accolade! There’s no real hurry, and you may have to wait until someone else thinks it appropriate to cite your paper. At least let’s wait until it is properly published, and others are able to check any citation. Nigel Cross (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Nigel Cross Yes, I 100% agree with what you are saying. I will not touch the Design Thinking article myself again. I was not aware of how to approach making edits as I have never done any edits on Wiki before. If someone would have pointed out to me please start a conversation in 'talks" that would have been tremendously helpful.

Biogeographist and Nigel Cross The article is now open access with the most open creative common liecense possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeDesignPractice (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear that your article is now available with a creative commons license! I have started reading it and am enjoying it. Biogeographist (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I am about to make some edits of the History section, including citing your article. I hope the changes are OK for everyone. Nigel Cross (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)