Editorial

In Does idea exchange promote productivity in design idea generation, Perttula, Krause and Sipilia describe a study designed to test the socio-cognitive basis of the expectation of superior performance from idea exchanging individuals over individuals working together. Social science research points to both negative and positive effects of social factors on group idea generation. In summary, whilst social stimulation and facilitation predict increased productivity, other social factors, such as production blocking, predict decreased productivity. Additionally, recent theories have proposed cognitive models of idea generation that predict productivity gains through cognitive stimulation, e.g. through idea exposure, and such benefits have been demonstrated, at least under some conditions, e.g. simultaneous and anonymous idea presentation. So Perttula et al. ask whether similar benefits can be achieved for visually orientated complex tasks, such as design. Through an experimental study, they are able to show that idea exchange (in which ideas generated individually are shared with others before proceeding individually to further idea generation) in design promotes performance in terms of the number of ideas generated. However, exposure to an other's ideas does not stimulate individuals so that they are able to produce more diverse solutions, and most importantly, exposure effects may differ according to the task domain, possibly influenced by the organisation of domain-specific knowledge structures.

Hence, in addition to the insight that is achieved, the study also reminds us that the factors influencing individual and group performance are manifold, varied and interactive. Nevertheless, as Pertulla et al. observe, researchers have been successful in demonstrating productivity gains through modification in the structure and communication flow of the ideas generation process. In the context of their paper, this is more an observation about the complexity of managing the social and cognitive processes invoked in an experimental setting such that theory about those processes can be tested.

Seen from another perspective, the process of managing interactions such that theorised or assumed effects are exploited in a beneficial way is a central preoccupation of design methods research. Contextmapping (Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005) is one set of techniques for managing design interactions to stimulate and inspire participants, as expert of their own experiences, in the conceptual stage of design. Contextualmapping has been tried and tuned to Western cultures and what works in Western cultures may not work in non-Western cultures. With Three factors in contextmapping in East Asia: trust, control and nunchi we move beyond the influence of individual and social, to cultural factors in design. Here, Van Rijn, Bahk, Stapper and Lee describe a study in which contextmapping was applied in South Korea in a modified form designed to accommodate cultural difference. Their approach was first to identify dimensions of cultural difference between the Netherlands and South Korea. These were then were used to assess the strength and weakness of contextmapping techniques for the South Korean user, guided by three design principles: building trust, enabling control and facilitating nunchi, which is a Korean word that describes the ability that a person has in reading the state of an other. The remainder of the paper focuses on describing how contextmapping techniques were modified to accommodate the East Asian situation, leading the authors conclude that contextmapping can be adjusted to good effect for the South Korean consumer, by taking into account cultural dimensions.

A vision on social interactions as a basis for design by Postma and Stappers continues the theme of techniques to support design. The paper describes as case study in which social interactions of adolescents were mapped in order to define a product interaction that suited the adolescents. Given that humans are inherently social, social interactions matter to all of us. Yet, human – product interaction is still predominately conceived as one human and one product even where use is typically social, e.g. a TV remote control. Motivated by this understanding, the case study concerned the design of a one-hour museum experience for groups of 13 – 15-year-old adolescents. The aim was to use understanding of the adolescents' world of experience in the design solution. In particular, it is argued, cliques, which are small, informal groups, are important to adolescents and play an important role in the development of adolescents' social skills. In simple terms, the case study explored the potential of the identification of such cliques to inform a design strategy that aimed to use the dynamic of the clique as a motivational factor in product use. The first phase of the case study involved the identification of cliques using cultural probes. The second phase of the project involved the use of sensitising techniques as a preparation for a generative session designed to gain insight into the social interactions and relationships within the cliques. This understanding then informed the design vision of the museum experience. For example, the authors' concluded that the design concept should draw on the identity and image of the individual adolescent and his/her clique, and should call on the different individuals' roles within the clique (i.e. leader, initiator, mediator). The paper then explains how the vision was realised in the concept design.

Finally, in Collaborative sketching: co-authoring future scenarios with bits and pieces of ethnography Johannson reflects on a series of projects in which ethnographically informed methods were employed during design. Initially, in keeping with ethnography, Johannson explains how the cultural material was gathered with a view to understanding the culture of interest. However, design is transformational and is not merely concerned with how things are, but how things might be. Johannson argues that sketching such future scenarios resembles creating a story in that a narrative builds on and has to refer to the known culture but has the potential to change and make such norms and conventions insecure. In this sense, a narrative is capable of taking us beyond what we know and understand in new directions. This is possible because rules, based on cultural conventions, govern how stories are constructed: conventions as it were within which surprises can be engineered. However, in a context where such conventions do not exist, i.e. collaborative storytelling, it may be necessary to impose explicit rules until convention is established. Following this reasoning, Johannson explores two primary themes: that ethnographical material may be reused, many times in many ways, as material (i.e. sketches) for envisioning future interaction in co-authoring future scenarios; and that explicit contexts such as game playing, provide useful frameworks or containers for material reuse in envisioning new scenarios.