Design precedents to design innovation: Category-based reasoning in problem-solving

References

• Akin, Ö. 2002. “Case-Based Instruction Strategies in Architecture.” Design Studies 23 (4): 407–431. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00046-1.
   Google Scholar
• Boling, E. 2020. “The Nature and Use of Precedent in Designing.” In Design for Learning: Principles, Processes, and Praxis, edited by J. K. McDonald & R. E. West. EdTech Books. Retrieved from https://edtechbooks.org/id/precedent.
   Google Scholar
• Carbonell, J. 1982. “Learning by Analogy: Formulating and Generalizing Plans from past Ie.” In Machine Learning, an Artificial Intelligence Approach, edited by R. Michalski, J. Carbonell, and T. Mitchell, 137–161. Palo Alto: Tioga Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carbonell, J. G. 1985. “Derivational Analogy: A Theory of Reconstructive Problem Solving and Expertise Acquisition.” In Machine Learning, an Artificial Intelligence Approach, edited by R. Michalski, J. Carbonell, and T. Mitchell, Vol. II, 85–115. Palo Alto: Tioga Press.
   Google Scholar
• Casakin, H. 2011. “Metaphorical Reasoning and Design Expertise: A Perspective for Design Education.” Journal of Learning Design 4 (2): 29–38. doi:https://doi.org/10.5204/jld.v4i2.73.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. 1982. “Designerly Ways of Knowing.” Design Studies 3 (4): 221–227. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0.
   Google Scholar
• De Massis, A., F. Frattini, J. Kotlar, A. M. Petruzzelli, and M. Wright. 2016. “Innovation through Tradition: Lessons from Innovative Family Businesses and Directions for Future Research.” Academy of Management Perspectives 30 (1): 93–116. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0017.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorst, K. 2019. “What Design Can’t Do.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 5 (4), 357–359. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.11.004.
   Google Scholar
• Dreyfus, H. L., and S. E. Dreyfus. 1986. “From Socrates to Expert Systems: The Limits of Calculative Rationality.” In Philosophy and Technology II. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, edited by C. Mitcham and A. Hunning, Vol. 90, 111–130. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Dundes, A. 1993. Folklore Matters. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. (reprint).
   Google Scholar
• Eilouti, B. H. 2009. “Design Knowledge Recycling Using Precedent-Based Analysis and Synthesis Models.” Design Studies 30 (4): 340–368. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2009.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eilouti, B. 2019. “Precedent-based design as a case-driven problem-solving technique in engineering design.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics (IMCIC 2019), Orlando, Florida, USA, 141–146.
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., and K. J. Kurtz. 2006. “Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Relations, Objects, and the Composition of Analogies.” Science 30: 609–642.
   Google Scholar
• Gentner, D., and J. Medina. 1998. “Similarity and the Development of Rules. Rules and Similarity in Human Thinking.” Cognition 65 (2-3): 263–297. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00002-X.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghazinoory, S., A. Sarkissian, M. Farhanchi, and F. Saghafi. 2020. “Renewing a Dysfunctional Innovation Ecosystem: The Case of the Lalejin Ceramics and Pottery.” Technovation 96-97: 102122. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godwin, K. E., A. V. Fisher, and B. J. Matlen. 2013. “Development of Category – Based Reasoning: Results from a Longitudinal Study.” Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 507–512. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. 2015. “Ubiquitous Serendipity: Potential Visual Design Stimuli are Everywhere.” In Studying Visual and Spatial Reasoning for Design Creativity, 205–214. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Grover, R., Emmitt, S., and Copping, A. 2016. “Learning from the Past: A Conceptual Model of Independent Typology Formation in the Design Studio.” Paper presented at Integrated Design at 50: Building our Future, Bath, UK United Kingdom, 30/06/16 - 1/07/16: 210-226.
   Google Scholar
• Grover, R., Emmitt, S., and Copping, A. 2018. “The Typological Learning Framework: The Application of Structured Precedent Design Knowledge in the Architectural Design Studio.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 28: 1019–1038. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9421-4.
   Google Scholar
• Holmquist, A., M. Magnusson, and M. Livholts. 2019. “Reinventing Tradition: Exploring the Creation of New Meaning through Innovations Involving Craft‐Based Design.” Creativity and Innovation Management 28 (1): 124–137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12297.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssen, M., A. M. V. Stoopendaal, and K. Putters. 2015. “Situated Novelty: Introducing a Process Perspective on the Study of Innovation.” Research Policy 44 (10): 1974–1984. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. 2004. “Schemata, Gambits and Precedent: Some Factors in Design Expertise.” Design studies 25 (5): 443–457. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.05.001.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. 2019. The Design Student’s Journey: Understanding how Designers Think. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Li, S., Li, Y., Li, W., and Chen, C. 2019. “An Extended Case-based Reasoning Method and Corresponding Product Design Process.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 233 (19–20): 6673–6688. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406219854901.
   Google Scholar
• Osherson, D. N., E. E. Smith, O. Wilkie, A. Lopez, and E. Shafir. 1990. “Category-Based Induction.” Psychological Review 97 (2): 185–200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Otto, K. N., and K. L. Wood. 2001. Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Books.
   Google Scholar
• Patil, K. 2014. “A Glimpse inside the Banarasi Mind: What Do Linguistic Categories Reveal about Banarasi-Toys?” Craft Research 5 (2): 175–197. doi:https://doi.org/10.1386/crre.5.2.175_1.
   Google Scholar
• Patil, K., and U. Athavankar. 2017. “Mutable Mobiles: Charting the Cartography of Banarasi-Toymakers.” Design Issues 33 (2): 43–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saliminamin, S., Becattini, N., and Cascini, G. 2019. “Sources of Creativity Stimulation for Designing the Next Generation of Technical Systems: Correlations with R&D Designers’ Performance.” Research in Engineering Design, 30: 133–153. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-018-0299-2.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. 1984. “Problems, Frames and Perspectives on Designing.” Design Studies 5 (3): 132–136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(84)90002-4.
   Google Scholar
• Sennett, R. 2008. The Craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sun, Y., and Münster, S. 2018. “A Look at the Research on Design Idea Generation in Industrial Design: Literature Review from 2003 to 2017.” In DS 89: Proceedings of The Fifth Interna5onal Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2018), University of Bath, Bath, UK, 31–38.
   Google Scholar