A socio-cognitive analysis of evaluation and idea generation activities during co-creative design sessions supported by spatial augmented reality

References

• Bonnardel, N., & Zenasni, F. (2010). The Impact of Technology on Creativity in Design: An Enhancement? Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boujut, J.-F., & Blanco, E. (2003). Intermediary objects as a means to foster co-operation in engineering design. In Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) (pp. 205–219). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Brauner, E., Boos, M., & Kolbe, M. (2018). The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis (Cambridge Handbooks in psychology). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cascini, G., O’Hare, J., Dekoninck, E., Becattini, N., Boujut, J. F., Ben Guefrache, F., Carli, I., Caruso, G., Giunta, L., & Morosi, F. (2020). Exploring the use of AR technology for co-creative product and packaging design. Computers in Industry, 123, 103308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2020.103308
   Google Scholar
• Cheung, M. F. Y., & To, W. M. (2011). Customer involvement and perceptions: The moderating role of customer co-production. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(4), 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.12.011
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, B. T., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). The role and impact of mental simulation in design. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(3), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1464
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), p221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (2001). Chapter 5 - design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, W. McCracken, & W. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education (pp. 79–103).
   Google Scholar
• D’Astous, P., Détienne, F., Visser, W., & Robillard, P. N. (2004). Changing our view on design evaluation meetings methodology: A study of software technical review meetings. Design Studies, 25(6), 625–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darses, F., & Falzon, P. (1996). La conception collective: Une approche de l’ergonomie. Coopération et Conception (G. de Terssac & E. Friedberg, Eds). Octarès Toulouse..
   Google Scholar
• Darses, F., Détienne, F., Falzon, P., & Visser, W. (2001). COMET. A method for analysing. INRIA. RR-4258
   Google Scholar
• Davidson, J., & Sternberg, R. (2003). The psychology of problem solving. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ericsson, K., & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data ((Rev. ed.). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gero, J., & McNeill, T. (1998). Changing our view on design evaluation meetings methodology: A study of software technical review meetings. Design Studies, 19(1), 21–61.
   Google Scholar
• Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1989). Motivating the notion of generic design within information-processing theory: The design problem space. AI Magazine, 10(1), 18–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldschmidt, G. (2007). To see eye to eye: The role of visual representations in building shared mental models in design teams. CoDesign, 3(1), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880601170826
   Google Scholar
• Gregory, S. A. (1966). Design and the design method. In S. A. Gregory (Ed.), The design method Butterorths.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, S., & Kou, C. Y. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 346–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeantet, A. (1998). Les objets intermédiaires dans la conception. Éléments pour une sociologie des processus de conception. Sociologie du travail, 40(3), 291–316. https://doi.org/10.3406/sotra.1998.1333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler, T., Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Stieger, D. (2011). Co-creation in virtual worlds: The design of the user experience. MIS Quarterly, 35(3), 773–788. https://doi.org/10.2307/23042808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolodner, J., & Wills, L. (1996). Powers of observation in creative design. Design Studies, 17(4), 385–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00021-X
   Google Scholar
• Kozar, O. (2010). Towards better group work: Seeing the difference between cooperation and collaboration. English Teaching Forum, 48(2), p16–23.
   Google Scholar
• Kristensson, P., & Magnusson, P. R. (2010). Tuning users’ innovativeness during ideation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00552.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leon, M., & Laing, R. (2013). Towards a computer mediated methodology for collaborative design during the early architectural design stages. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 17th international conference on computer supported cooperative work in design (CSCWD)2013, Whistler, BC, (pp. 489–495). https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2013.6581011.
   Google Scholar
• Luck, R. (2014). Seeing architecture in action: Designing, evoking, and depicting space and form in embodied interaction. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 2(3), 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2013.875488
   Google Scholar
• Magnusson, P. R. (2009). Exploring the contributions of involving ordinary users in ideation of technology-based services. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(5), 578–593. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00684.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maher, M., & Tang, H. (2003). Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-002-0016-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morosi, F., Carli, I., Caruso, G., Cascini, G., Dhokia, V., & Ben Guefrache, F. (2018). Analysis of co-design scenarios and activities for the development of a spatial-augmented reality design platform. DS92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th international design conference, (pp. 381–392). http://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0504
   Google Scholar
• Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge university press.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Y., & Ellis, J. (1994). Distributed cognition: An alternative framework for analysing and explaining collaborative working. Journal of Information Technology, 9(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/026839629400900203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roschelle, J., & Teasly, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O'Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1981, September). Information‐processing models of cognition. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, 32(5), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630320517
   Google Scholar
• Steen, M., Manschot, M., & de Koning, N. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 53–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar