How Should We Measure Creativity in Engineering Design? A Comparison Between Social Science and Engineering ApproachesSource: Journal of Mechanical Design:;2021:;volume( 143 ):;issue: 003::page 031404-1Author:Miller, Scarlett R.
,
Hunter, Samuel T.
,
Starkey, Elizabeth
,
Ramachandran, Sharath
,
Ahmed, Faez
,
Fuge, Mark
DOI: 10.1115/1.4049061Publisher: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
Abstract: Design researchers have long sought to understand the mechanisms that support creative idea development. However, one of the key challenges faced by the design community is how to effectively measure the nebulous construct of creativity. The social science and engineering communities have adopted two vastly different approaches to solving this problem, both of which have been deployed throughout engineering design research. The goal of this paper was to compare and contrast these two approaches using design ratings of nearly 1000 engineering design ideas. The results of this study identify that while these two methods provide similar ratings of idea quality, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between these methods for ratings of idea novelty. In addition, the results show discrepancies in the reliability and consistency of global ratings of creativity. The results of this study guide the deployment of idea ratings in engineering design research and evidence.
|
Collections
Show full item record
contributor author | Miller, Scarlett R. | |
contributor author | Hunter, Samuel T. | |
contributor author | Starkey, Elizabeth | |
contributor author | Ramachandran, Sharath | |
contributor author | Ahmed, Faez | |
contributor author | Fuge, Mark | |
date accessioned | 2022-02-05T21:45:23Z | |
date available | 2022-02-05T21:45:23Z | |
date copyright | 1/27/2021 12:00:00 AM | |
date issued | 2021 | |
identifier issn | 1050-0472 | |
identifier other | md_143_3_031404.pdf | |
identifier uri | http://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4276275 | |
description abstract | Design researchers have long sought to understand the mechanisms that support creative idea development. However, one of the key challenges faced by the design community is how to effectively measure the nebulous construct of creativity. The social science and engineering communities have adopted two vastly different approaches to solving this problem, both of which have been deployed throughout engineering design research. The goal of this paper was to compare and contrast these two approaches using design ratings of nearly 1000 engineering design ideas. The results of this study identify that while these two methods provide similar ratings of idea quality, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between these methods for ratings of idea novelty. In addition, the results show discrepancies in the reliability and consistency of global ratings of creativity. The results of this study guide the deployment of idea ratings in engineering design research and evidence. | |
publisher | The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) | |
title | How Should We Measure Creativity in Engineering Design? A Comparison Between Social Science and Engineering Approaches | |
type | Journal Paper | |
journal volume | 143 | |
journal issue | 3 | |
journal title | Journal of Mechanical Design | |
identifier doi | 10.1115/1.4049061 | |
journal fristpage | 031404-1 | |
journal lastpage | 031404-9 | |
page | 9 | |
tree | Journal of Mechanical Design:;2021:;volume( 143 ):;issue: 003 | |
contenttype | Fulltext |