Examining the Role of the Three Cognitive Components of Intuition, Abduction and Expertise in the Design Thinking Process

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of industrial Design, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Professor, Department of Industrial Design, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran.

3 Professor, Department of Industrial Design, College of applied Arts, Iran university of art.

Abstract

This research explores the cognitive components required by effective problem-solving in design, specifically intuition, innovative reasoning, and expertise that are so central to ‘designerly’ ways of problem-solving. The main approaches used in this type of problem-solving are unique in the world of designers and also different from the traditional ways of solving problems in both science and engineering fields. Unlike the systematic and analytical strategies often used in science, design thinking underlines the integration of cognitive abilities related to divergent thinking, creativity, and intuition, especially in contexts with ambiguity and uncertainty. Such characteristics make designerly approaches more relevant for complex, dynamic challenges, which are increasingly the case in contemporary society. This paper qualitatively investigates the intuitive, innovative reasoning, and expertise roles throughout the stages of design thinking, with arguments related to the development of the respective cognitive abilities in the course of design education. By using a descriptive-analytical methodology, data for this study were obtained via a thorough review of relevant literature, thematically analyzed in terms of how intuitive, innovative reasoning, and expertise contribute to each step of design thinking. These steps consist of empathy, problem definition, ideation, testing, and evaluation. The findings specifically indicate that intuition was most effective in the empathy, ideation, and testing stages, while innovative reasoning plays a visible critical role in both problem definition and ideation phases. Expertise was most influential in the problem definition, ideation, and evaluation stages. The study also definitely highlights a significant gap in current design education, where cognitive abilities which are central to the designerly approach—such as intuitive thinking, innovative reasoning, and experiential knowledge—are not adequately addressed. Design education often emphasizes logic and reasoning skills, overlooking the non-argumentative and intuitive aspects of the design process. The fact that such important cognitive dimensions of successful design practice are paid so little attention signals a paradigm shift that is much needed in the design curricula. It thus advocates for a holistic approach in design education, embracing both the rational and the emotional in design thinking. This would involve an interdisciplinary integration of cognitive science and design theory that could inform the development of new educational strategies enhancing the problem-solving capabilities of future designers. The implications of this research are profound, as they point to the necessity of developing educational frameworks that are in line with the cognitive processes underpinning effective design practice. By explicitly targeting the development of intuition, innovative reasoning, and expertise, design education can better prepare designers to deal with complex problems in dynamic and unpredictable contexts. This study also suggests that with a greater emphasis on these cognitive components, design solutions will be more innovative and effective in solving the challenges facing contemporary society. This implies, among the other things, the need for reconceptualizing design education to ensure that cognitive diversity is regarded and a variety of knowledge integration is considered, including embodied and tacit knowledge, which significantly enhances the design thinking process and fosters highly skilled adaptive designers.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Badke-Schaub, P., & Eris, O. (2014). A theoretical approach to intuition in design: Does design methodology need to account for unconscious processes? An anthology of theories and models of design: Philosophy, approaches and empirical explorations, 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_17
Badke-Schaub, P., & Voute, E. (2018). Design methodology: Where do you go?. In DS 92: Proceedings of the Design 2018 15th International Design Conference (pp. 25-32). https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0550
Bear, A., & Rand, D. G. (2016). Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(4), 936-941. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517780113
Burke, L. A., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2011). Integrating intuition in higher education: A perspective from business management. In Handbook of intuition research. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936370.00031 Cambridge Cognition. (2015, August 19). What is cognition? https://cambridgecognition.com/what-is-cognition/ Carbon, C. C. (2019). Psychology of design. Design science, 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.25
Çizgen, G., & Ulusu Uraz, T. (2019). The unknown position of intuition in design activity. The Design Journal, 22(3), 257-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1589414
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-301-9
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1994). Design expertise amongst student designers. Journal of Art & Design Education, 13(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.1994.tb00356.x
Çizgen, G. (2019). Explorative investigation of intuition in design activity [Doctoral dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University]. Eastern Mediterranean University Repository. http://i-rep.emu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/11129/5724
Dane, E. (2011). Capturing intuitions ‘in flight’: Observations from research on attention and mindfulness. In Handbook of intuition research (pp. 217–226). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936370.00029
Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.586
Dörfler, V., & Ackermann, F. (2012). Understanding intuition: The case for two forms of intuition. Management Learning, 43(5), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611434686
Dorst, K., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2004). Levels of expertise in design education. In DS 33: Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, the 7th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (pp. 159–166).
Dunne, D. D., & Dougherty, D. (2016). Abductive reasoning: How innovators navigate in the labyrinth of complex product innovation. Organization Studies, 37(2), 131–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615604501
Durling, D. (1999). Intuition in design. In Bulletin of 4th Asian Design Conference International Symposium on Design Science. Nagaoka, Japan.
Epstein, S. (2010). Demystifying intuition: What it is, what it does, and how it does it. Psychological Inquiry, 21(4), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2010.523875
Friedman, K. (2019). Design education today: Challenges, opportunities, failures [Chatterjee Global Lecture]. College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning, University of Cincinnati.
Furniss, L. (2020). Beyond discipline: Evolving design practice and design education in the twenty-first century. Architecture_MPS, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.amps.2020v18i1.004
Goffin, K., & Koners, U. (2011). Tacit knowledge, lessons learnt, and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2), 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00798
Hay, L., Cash, P., & McKilligan, S. (2020). The future of design cognition analysis. Design Science, 6, e20. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.20
Iannello, P., Antonietti, A., & Betsch, C. (2011). Intuition in teaching. In Handbook of intuition research. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857936370
Johannesson, P., & Perjons, E. (2014). An introduction to design science. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78132-3
Kalyani, R. (2019). Understanding user search processes across varying cognitive levels. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.1145/3342220.3343643
Kiely, K. M. (2014). Cognitive function. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_426
Koskela, L., Paavola, S., & Kroll, E. (2018). The role of abduction in production of new ideas in design. Advancements in the Philosophy of Design, 153–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73302-9_8
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Krch, D. (2011). Cognitive processing. In J. S. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca, & B. Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79948-3_1443
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Elsevier.
Ling, T., Xiao, Y. G., & Badke-Schaub, P. G. (2014). How intuition affects designers’ decision making: An interview study. In DS 77: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2014 13th International Design Conference (pp. 537–548).
Lloyd, P., & Scott, P. (1994). Discovering the design problem. Design Studies, 15(2), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(94)90020-5
Lu, S. C. Y., & Liu, A. (2012). Abductive reasoning for design synthesis. CIRP Annals, 61(1), 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2012.03.062
Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education for the 21st century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 13–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.002
Myerson, J. (2016). Scaling down: Why designers need to reverse their thinking. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2(4), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.06.001
Orbey, B., & Sarıoğlu Erdoğdu, G. P. (2021). Design process re-visited in the first year design studio: Between intuition and reasoning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31, 771–795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09573-2
Papalambros, P. (2015). Design science: Why, what and how. Design Science, 1, E1. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2015.1 Patterson, R. E., & Eggleston, R. G. (2017). Intuitive cognition. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416686476
Raami, A. (2015). Intuition unleashed: On the application and development of intuition in the creative process [Doctoral thesis, Aalto University].
Raami, A., Mielonen, S., & Keinänen, M. (2010). Designer's experiences of intuition: Coaching intuitive skills as part of creative design process. In Cumulus Working Papers G. Conference Proceedings (pp. 52–57). Cumulus Association, Aalto University.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457429
Reber, A. S. (1993). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford University Press. Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2003). Intuitive tools for innovative thinking. In International handbook on innovation (pp. 377–387). Elsevier Science.
Rowe, A., & Takach, B. S. (Eds.). (2014). Design education: Approaches, explorations and perspectives. Department of Art and Design, University of Alberta.
Sanders, L. (2008). An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions, 15(6), 13–17. https://doi.org/10.1145/1409040.1409043
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., Huotilainen, M., Mäkelä, M., Groth, C., & Hakkarainen, K. (2016). How can neuroscience help understand design and craft activity? The promise of cognitive neuroscience in design studies. FORMakademisk. https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1478
Shavinina, L. V. (2003). Understanding scientific innovation: The case of Nobel Laureates. In The international handbook on innovation (1st ed.). Elsevier Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044198-6/50031-0
Simon, H. A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (2nd ed.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1969)
Spence, C., & Gallace, A. (2007). Recent developments in the study of tactile attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(3), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1037/CJEP2007021
Tang, H.-H., & Gero, J. S. (2001). Sketches as affordances of meanings in the design process. In J. S. Gero, B. Tversky, & T. Purcell (Eds.), Visual and spatial reasoning in design II (pp. 271–282). Key Center of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney.
Tebyani, K., Ajdari, A., & Bagheri Taleghani, E. (2021). Investigating the factors affecting the intuitive thinking of designers in the design process. Journal of Visual and Applied Arts, 14(32), 5–22.
Tondi, A., & Amraee, B. (2019). Revision of the theory of design as a discipline: Content analysis of contemporary design methodology. Theoretical Principles of Visual Arts, 4(1), 141–154.
Tschimmel, K. (2004). A new discipline in design education: Cognitive processes in design. In DS 33: Proceedings of E&PDE 2004, the 7th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (pp. 175–184).
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention and the arts creativity. John Wiley & Sons.
Wertheimer, M. (1982). Productive thinking (Enlarged ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Yee, J. (2012). Implications for research training and examination for design PhDs. In The Sage handbook of digital dissertations and theses (pp. 461–492). Sage.
Journal of Fine Arts: Visual Arts
Volume 31, Issue 1
May 2026
Pages 9-24

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics