Abstract
Creativity has been studied as a psychological phenomenon, and research has focused on factors that influence the human variability and acquisition of such capacity. Still, the creative process remained metaphorically described, and with no rigorous formalization. Moreover, the knowledge background of ideation has been ignored, as well as the interplay between creative ideation and knowledge generation. This paper is an introduction to recent advances in design theory, namely C-K theory or concept knowledge theory (Hatchuel and Weil in A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to C-K theory, 2003, Res Eng Des 19:181–192, 2009) that overcomes such biases and assumes that creative thinking can be formally described with solid theoretical premises that can be experimentally tested. There is now significant literature that assesses its propositions, findings and implications. C-K theory introduces new notions: “concept undecidability”, “knowledge independence”, “generic expansions” and “knowledge reordering”; they capture key necessary mechanisms of any creative process. Therefore, classic interpretations of creativity (association of ideas, analogy, blending, divergence and convergence) have to be revisited. C-K theory shows that they account for some aspects of ideation, but miss important operators that uncover the generative and expanding logic of creative thinking. It also reveals that specific knowledge structures are needed to allow for creative generation. C-K theory captures within the same formal model, both creative ideation and learning, invention and discovery, fixation and expansion of knowledge. Thanks to its explanatory and predictive power, C-K theory allows a new articulation between theory and observation in the field of creativity. Several findings have confirmed the value of such research potential. Finally, C-K theory stimulates transdisciplinary research through the development of a rigorous design science and the modelling of creative logic in all disciplines.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
Regardless of how “truth” is assessed. For instance, emotions can be seen as “truths” that can impact the creative process as any other type of truths, for instance, “scientific” propositions. This flexibility in the construction of space K, gives to C-K theory a very high level of generality and allows to capture and understand creative processes and different types of human activity.
- 2.
Moreover, it has been established that C-K theory was in deep correspondence with the Forcing method in Set theory (Cohen, 1963). Forcing is a major result of Modern Set theory; it has been developed in 1963 by Cohen for the design of new collections of sets (called extension models). Thus Forcing can be interpreted as a method for creative design in the pure world of sets. And to put it shortly, if K-pace is limited to Set theory and number theory, C-K theory becomes the Forcing method. Thus C-K theory can be seen as a generalization of forcing to knowledge spaces where objects are not only numbers or classic sets (Hatchuel & Weil, 2007).
References
Abadi, M., & Cardelli, L. (1996). A theory of objects. New York: Springer.
Agogué, M., & Cassotti, M. (2012). Theory driven experiments: Modeling and testing fixation and stimulation effects on creativity. Paper presented at the 5th Paris Workshop of the Design Theory SIG, Paris, January 30, 2012.
Agogué, M., & Kazakçi, A. (2014). 10 years of C-K theory: A survey on the academic and industrial impacts of a design theory. In A. Chakrabarti & L. Blessing (Eds.), An anthology of theories and models of design, philosophy, approaches and empirical explorations (pp. 219–235). Bangalore: Springer.
Agogué, M., Kazakçi, A., Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., Weil, B., Poirel, N., et al. (2014). The impact of type of examples on originality: Explaining fixation and stimulation effects. Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(1), 1–12.
Agogué, M., Le Masson, P., Dalmasso, C., Houdé, O., & Cassotti, M. (2015). Resisting classical solutions: The creative mind of industrial designers and engineers. Journal of Psychology of the Aesthetics, Creativity and the Arts, 9(3), 313–318.
Boden, M. A. (1990). The creative mind. London: George Weidenfeld and Nicolson Ltd.
Boden, M. A. (1999). Computer models of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 351–372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brun, J., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2015). Analyzing the generative effects of sketches with design theory: Sketching to foster knowledge reordering. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design, Milan, July 27–31, 2015.
Cohen, P. J. (1963). The independence of the continuum hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 50, 1143–1148.
Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 391–404.
Eris, O. (2003). Asking generative questions: A fundamental cognitive mechanism in design thinking. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering design, ICED’03, Stockholm, Sweden, August 18–21, 2003.
Eris, O. (2004). Effective inquiry for innovative engineering design. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Traits of creativity. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 142–151). New York: Harper & Row.
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2003). A new approach of innovative design: An introduction to C-K theory. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering design, ICED’03, Stockholm, Sweden, August 18–21, 2003.
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2007). Design as forcing: Deepening the foundations of C-K theory. Paper presented at the ICED07: 16th International Conference of Engineering Design, Paris, France, August 28–31, 2007.
Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K theory: An advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design, 19, 181–192.
Hatchuel, A., Weil, B., & Le Masson, P. (2013). Towards an ontology of design: Lessons from C-K design theory and forcing. Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 147–163.
Kazakçi, A. O. (2013). On the imaginative constructivist nature of design: A theoretical approach. Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 127–145.
Kazakçi, A. O., Gillier, T., Piat, G., & Hatchuel, A. (2014). Brainstorming vs. creative design reasoning: A theory driven experimental investigation of novelty, feasibility and value of ideas. Paper presented at the Design Computing and Cognition, DCC’14, London, UK, June 23–25, 2014.
Kokshagina, O. (2014). Risk management in double unknown: Theory, model and organization for the design of generic technologies. Thesis presented at MINES ParisTech, Paris.
Le Masson, P., Dorst, K., & Subrahmanian, E. (2013). Design theory: History, state of the arts and advancements. Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 97–103.
Le Masson, P., Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2011). The interplay between creativity issues and design theories: A new perspective for design management studies? Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), 217–237.
Le Masson, P., Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2016). Design theory at Bauhaus: Teaching “splitting” knowledge. Research in Engineering Design, 27(2), 91–115.
Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2013). Design theories as languages for the unknown: Insights from the German roots of systematic design (1840–1960). Research in Engineering Design, 24(2), 105–126.
Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. J. (1997). Noun phrases as surrogates for measuring early phases of the mechanical design process. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Sacramento, CA (USA), September 14–17, 1997.
Savanović, P., & Zeiler, W. (2007). Using methodical design for culture change in Dutch building design practice: ‘Learning by doing’ workshops. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 1(2), 71–82.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 243–270). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weisberg, R. W. (1999). Creativity and knowledge: A challenge to theories. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 226–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 189–212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., Weil, B. (2017). C-K Theory: Modelling Creative Thinking and Its Impact on Research. In: Darbellay, F., Moody, Z., Lubart, T. (eds) Creativity, Design Thinking and Interdisciplinarity. Creativity in the Twenty First Century. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7524-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7524-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-7523-0
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-7524-7
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)