26 Why Are They Able to ‘Design Thinking?’: Framing A Designer’s Practical Intelligence Linked to Their Thinking, Acting and Attitude Takuo Ando 1 and Satoru Goto 2 1 Faculty of Business Administration, Toyo Gakuen University. [email protected]2 College of Business Administration, Ritsumeikan University. Abstract: This study aims at exploring the theoretical foundation of design thinking, especially from the perspective of a designer’s practical intelligence linked to their thinking, acting, and attitude. From the middle of the 2000’s, many efforts to apply design thinking to businesses have been made. The reason why design thinking is useful for business is that some of its aspects are considered to promote innovation. While rising such a business side movement, design researchers have tried to deconstruct design thinking for a long time (e.g. Rowe, 1987; Cross, 2011). The ‘designerly thinking’ discourse revealed that the core of this kind of thinking lies in the ‘abductive reasoning’, relying on a complex cognitive activity called, ‘reframing’ (Dorst, 2011). Reframing is, ‘shifting semantic perspective in order to see things in a new way’, (Kolko, 2010: p.17). It requires a unique mindset that constantly updates not only the knowledge and skills, but also its own ‘being’ (Adams et al., 2011) . While understanding design thinking is important, creating or discovering a framework that guides the designers’ practical intelligence (Strenberg & Wagner, 1992) including their situated action, learning style and attitude, to understand, ‘why they are able to indulge in such a thinking’, is more crucial. In this study, we attempted to create a theoretical framework that links their thinking, acting, and attitude, through a literature review. Introduction From the middle of the 2000’s, there have been many efforts to apply design thinking (DT) to businesses. DT is, ‘bringing designers’ principles, approaches, methods, and tools to problem solving’, (Brown, 2008). The reason why it has been introduced to business so aggressively is the demand for new ways of thinking that is unbiased towards a convergent approach (Boland & Collopy, 2004; Martin, 2009). In the field of management, there is a need to build ambidextrous organisations that realise not only efficient management, but also innovation (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Some scholars have adopted this unique aspect and developed it as a business building tool (Brown, 2009; Liedtka & Ogilvie, 2011), and others have attempted to apply that to management-related education (Boland & Collopy, 2004). Design thinking is now considered as the new way of thinking that will lead the current stagnant situation to an ideal sustainable future. On the other hand, some scholars criticise the lack of clarity about what DT ‘is’, and the discussion of DT in management discourses has no theoretical foundation (Carlgren, Rauth & Elmquist, 2016; Johansson-Skölberg, Woodilla & Çetinkaya, 2013; Kimbell, 2011). Indeed, most researchers define it
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).
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.
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
measured. In H. L. Roediger III, J. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. Surprenant (Eds.). The nature ofremembering:EssaysinhonorofRobertG.Crowder:117-150.AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
andassessment.JournalofResearchinScienceTeaching,46(6),606-609.Dunne, D. & Martin, R. 2006. Design Thinking and How it will Change Management Education.
HerbertSimon,JournalofManagementandGovernance,5(3-4),260-273.Johansson-Skölberg,U., Woodilla, L. and Çetinkaya,M. 2013. Design Thinking: Past, Present and
