Integrating design thinking and anthropology as enablers in addressing responsible innovation | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Design, Business & Society
  4. Volume 8, Issue 2
  5. Article
Design Education: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
  • ISSN: 2055-2106
  • E-ISSN: 2055-2114

Abstract

This work explores the integration of design thinking (DT) and anthropology as enablers in addressing responsible innovation in a real-world project. We used a problem and project-based learning (PPBL) approach with transdisciplinary research to explore such integration. We implemented design thinking as a reflective practice, process and mindset and postmodern anthropology as an approach and interpretative anthropology as an instrument. The objective is to integrate both when teaching strategic innovation as they help secure profitability while being responsible for the negative implications of innovation and its hidden un(der)costed flows. We designed a project-based learning approach embedded in a problem-based learning approach to expose students to the complexity of responsible innovation and distinguish its different elements through a sustained period. We documented a semester-long project where an interdisciplinary undergraduate group (non-designers) and community members partnered to face a societal challenge. Students submitted reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action assignments throughout the semester, and we triangulated them with participative observation and physical artefacts to document their learning experiences. We used thematic analysis addressing recurrent themes, topics and relationships towards the experiential learning approach and instructional methodologies that facilitated learning DT, anthropology and responsible innovation. Students perceived that anthropology and DT helped them visualize unforeseen consequences, make the normative within the technical explicit, acknowledge plural viewpoints and promote collective learning. Second, they recognized human perspective, participatory tools, intentional actions and functional outcomes as approaches to attend to those external factors that discourage responsible innovation. Third, they discerned that a PPBL approach using transdisciplinary research enabled them to have a greater understanding of the topic, deeper learning and increased motivation to learn. It also facilitated taming ill-defined problems while producing new understandings and feasible solution-oriented outcomes. This work discusses the need for theories and pedagogies to teach contemporary innovation in business education. First, we contributed to the former by embedding anthropology and DT to discuss responsible innovation as an essential element in devising strategic innovation. It emphasizes the need for academics and non-academic participants to reflect on their role and power in developing integrated knowledge for science and society. Second, we explore the practical implications of integrating a PPBL approach in business education pedagogy. It allows students to work in real-world settings and produce workable contributions to (and with) society. This project provides a detailed and descriptive analysis of a PPBL approach that aims to address responsible innovation in a public project while documenting students learning experiences. This work contributes to empirical research addressing pedagogies and advancing new theories in business education.

© 2022 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00038_1
2022-12-22
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ambrose, G., and Harris, P.. ( 2009), Basics Design 08: Design Thinking, London:: Bloomsbury Publishing;.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Baba, M. L.. ( 1986;), ‘ Business and industrial anthropology: An overview. ’, National Association for the Practice of Anthropology, vol. 2, Arlington, VA:: American Anthropological Association;.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, D. F., and Baker, S. J.. ( 2012;), ‘ To “catch the sparkling glow”: A canvas for creativity in the management classroom. ’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11:4, pp. 704–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Beckman, S. L., and Barry, M.. ( 2007;), ‘ Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. ’, California Management Review, 50:1, pp. 25–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boland, R., and Collopy, F.. ( 2004), Managing as Designing, Stanford, CA:: Stanford University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, T.. ( 2008;), ‘ Design thinking. ’, Harvard Business Review, 86:6, pp. 84–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Buchanan, R.. ( 1992;), ‘ Wicked problems in design thinking. ’, Design Issues, 8:2, pp. 5–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Carlgren, L.,, Rauth, I., and Elmquist, M.. ( 2016;), ‘ Framing design thinking: The concept in idea and enactment. ’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 25:1, pp. 38–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Clinebell, S. K., and Clinebell, J. M.. ( 2008;), ‘ The tensions in business education between academic rigor and real-world relevance: The role of executive professors. ’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7:1, pp. 99–107.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Connor, S.. ( 1989), Postmodernist Culture: An Introduction to Theories of the Contemporary, London:: Basil Blackwell;.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Coombe, R.. ( 1991;), ‘ Encountering the postmodern: New directions in cultural anthropology. ’, The Canadian Review of Sociology, 28:2, pp. 188–205.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Damanpour, F.. ( 1987;), ‘ The adoption of technological, administrative and ancillary innovations: Impact of organisational factors. ’, Journal of Management, 13:4, pp. 675–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Datar, S.,, Garvin, D., and Cullen, P.. ( 2011;), ‘ Rethinking the MBA: Business education at a crossroads. ’, Journal of Management Development, 30:5, pp. 451–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Design Council ( 2005), Eleven Lessons: Managing Design in Eleven Global Brands: A Study of the Design Process, London:: Design Council;.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dorst, K., and Cross, N.. ( 2001;), ‘ Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. ’, Design Studies, 22:5, pp. 425–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dunne, D., and Martin, R.. ( 2006;), ‘ Design thinking and how it will change management education: An interview and discussion. ’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5:4, pp. 512–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dyer, J.,, Gregersen, H. B., and Christensen, C. M.. ( 2011), The Innovator’s DNA: Mastering the Five Skills of Disruptive Innovators, Boston, MA:: Harvard Business Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Etzkowitz, H.,, Webster, A.,, Gebhardt, C., and Cantisano Terra, B. R.. ( 2000;), ‘ The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. ’, Research Policy, 29:2, pp. 313–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Foster, H.. ( 1983;), ‘ Postmodernism: A preface. ’, in H. Foster. (ed.), The Anti-Aesthetic: Essays on Postmodern Culture, Seattle, WA:: Bay Press;, p. 1.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Frechtling, J. A., and Sharp, L. M.. (eds) ( 1997), User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations, Darby, PA:: Diane Publishing;.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Glen, R.,, Suciu, C., and Baughn, C.. ( 2014;), ‘ The need for design thinking in business schools. ’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13:4, pp. 653–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Glen, R.,, Suciu, C.,, Baughn, C. C., and Anson, R.. ( 2015;), ‘ Teaching design thinking in business schools. ’, The International Journal of Management Education, 13:2, pp. 182–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Gordon, R. A., and Howell, J. E.. ( 1959;), ‘ Higher education for business. ’, The Journal of Business Education, 35:3, pp. 115–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Groeger, L., and Schweitzer, J.. ( 2020;), ‘ Developing a design thinking mindset: Encouraging designerly ways in postgraduate business education. ’, in G. Melles. (ed.), Design Thinking in Higher Education, Singapore:: Springer;, pp. 41–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hassi, L., and Laakso, M.. ( 2011;), ‘ Design thinking in the management discourse: Defining the elements of the concept. ’, 18th International Product Development Management Conference, Innovate through Design, Delft, The Netherlands, 5–7 June.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hirsch Hadorn, G.,, Hoffmann-Riem, H.,, Biber-Klemm, S.,, Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W.,, Joye, D.,, Pohl, C.,, Wiesmann, U., and Zemp, E.. ( 2008), Handbook of Transdisciplinary Research, Dordrecht:: Springer;.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hobday, M.,, Boddington, A., and Grantham, A.. ( 2012;), ‘ An innovation perspective on design: Part 2. ’, Design Issues, 28:1, pp. 18–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Howard, Z.,, Senova, M., and Melles, G.. ( 2015;), ‘ Exploring the role of mindset in design thinking: Implications for capability development and practice. ’, Journal of Design, Business & Society, 1:2, pp. 183–202.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Johansson-Sköldberg, U.,, Woodilla, J., and Çetinkaya, M.. ( 2013;), ‘ Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. ’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 22:2, pp. 121–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Jordan, A. T.. ( 2013), Business Anthropology, , 2nd ed.., Chicago, IL:: Waveland Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Khurana, R., and Spender, J. C.. ( 2012;), ‘ Herbert A. Simon on what ails business schools: More than “a problem in organizational design”. ’, Journal of Management Studies, 46:3, pp. 619–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Klein, J. T.. ( 2008;), ‘ Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. ’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35:2, pp. 116–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Koomans, M., and Hilders, C.. ( 2016;), ‘ Design-driven leadership for value innovation in healthcare. ’, Design Management Journal, 11:1, pp. 43–57.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Krippendorff, K.. ( 2005;), ‘ The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. ’, Boca Raton, FL:: CRC Press;, https://doi.org/10.4324/978020329995. Accessed 8 November 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kruger, C., and Cross, N.. ( 2006;), ‘ Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes. ’, Design Studies, 27:5, pp. 527–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Laredo, P., and Mustar, P.. ( 2004;), ‘ Public sector research: A growing role in innovation. ’, Minerva, 42:1, pp. 11–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lawson, B.. ( 2006), How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, Amsterdam:: Elsevier;.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Liedtka, J.. ( 2018;), ‘ Why design thinking works. ’, Harvard Business Review, 96:5, pp. 72–79.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Liedtka, J., and Ogilvie, T.. ( 2011), Designing for Growth: A Design Thinking Toolkit for Managers, New York:: Columbia Business School;.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Magistretti, S.,, Ardito, L., and Messeni Petruzzelli, A.. ( 2021;), ‘ Framing the microfoundations of design thinking as a dynamic capability for innovation: Reconciling theory and practice. ’, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 38:6, pp. 645–67.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Martin, R.. ( 2009), The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage, Cambridge, MA:: Harvard Business Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Melles, G.,, Anderson, N.,, Barrett, T., and Thompson-Whiteside, S.. ( 2015;), ‘ Problem finding through design thinking in education. ’, in P. Blessinger, and J. M. Carfora. (eds), Inquiry-Based Learning for Multidisciplinary Programs: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators, Bingley:: Emerald Group Publishing Limited;, pp. 191–209, https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120140000001032. Accessed 8 November 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Mintzberg, H.. ( 2004), Managers Not MBAs, San Francisco, CA:: Barret-Koehler Publisher;.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Nielsen, S. L.,, Christensen, P.,, Lassen, A. H., and Mikkelsen, M.. ( 2017;), ‘ Hunting the opportunity: The promising nexus of design and entrepreneurship. ’, The Design Journal, 20:5, pp. 617–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Nowotny, H.,, Scott, P., and Gibbons, M.. ( 2003;), ‘ Introduction: “mode 2” revisited: The new production of knowledge. ’, Minerva, 41:3, pp. 179–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Owen, R.,, Bessant, J. R., and Heintz, M.. (eds) ( 2013), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, New York:: John Wiley & Sons;.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Owen, R.,, Stilgoe, J.,, Macnaghten, P.,, Gorman, M.,, Fisher, E., and Guston, D.. ( 2013;), ‘ A framework for responsible innovation. ’, in R. Owen,, J. R. Bessant, and M. Heintz. (eds), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, New York:: John Wiley & Sons;.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Romo, D., and Hill, P.. ( 2006), Los determinantes de las actividades tecnológicas en México, CIDE:: Serie de Documentos de Trabajo en Ciencia y Tecnología;.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Rousseau, D. M., and McCarthy, S.. ( 2007;), ‘ Educating managers from an evidence-based perspective. ’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6:1, pp. 84–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Said, E. W.. ( 2014;), ‘ Orientalism reconsidered. ’, in B. Moore-Gilbert,, G. Stanton, and W. Maley. (eds), Postcolonial Criticism, London:: Routledge;, pp. 126–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Savery, J. R.. ( 2006;), ‘ Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions. ’, The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1:1, pp. 9–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Schön, D.. ( 1983), The Reflective Practitioner, New York:: Basic Books;.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Schwartzman, H. B.. ( 1993), Ethnography in Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage;.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Seidel, S.,, Recker, J., and Vom Brocke, J.. ( 2013;), ‘ Sensemaking and sustainable practicing: Functional affordances of information systems in green transformations. ’, MIS Quarterly, 37:4, pp. 1275–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Simon, H. A.. ( 1969), The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Stanford d.school ( 2010;), ‘ Bootcamp bootleg. ’, http://dschool.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/BootcampBootleg2010v2SLIM.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2022.
  57. Starkey, K., and Tempest, S.. ( 2009;), ‘ The winter of our discontent: The design challenge for business school. ’, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8:4, pp. 576–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Teece, D.. ( 2014;), ‘ The foundations of enterprise performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms. ’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 28:4, pp. 328–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Teece, D. J.,, Pisano, G., and Shuen, A.. ( 1997;), ‘ Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. ’, Strategic Management Journal, 18:7, pp. 509–33.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. von Schomberg, R.. ( 2011;), ‘ Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. ’, European Commission Services , https://philpapers.org/archive/vontrr.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2022.
  61. Welsh, M., and Dehler, G. E.. ( 2013;), ‘ Combining critical reflection and design thinking to develop integrative learners. ’, Journal of Management Education, 37:6, pp. 771–802.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Wiek, A.,, Xiong, A.,, Brundiers, K., and van der Leeuw, S.. ( 2014;), ‘ Integrating problem-and project-based learning into sustainability programs: A case study on the School of Sustainability at Arizona State University. ’, International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 15:4, pp. 431–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Zaltman, G.,, Duncan, R., and Holbeck, J.. ( 1973), Innovation and Organization, New York:: John Wiley & Son;.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Cruz Megchun, Beatriz Itzel. ( 2022;), ‘ Integrating design thinking and anthropology as enablers in addressing responsible innovation. ’, Journal of Design, Business & Technology, 8:2, pp. 167–90, https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00038_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00038_1
Loading
Integrating design thinking and anthropology as enablers in addressing responsible innovation
Journal of Design, Business & Society 8, 167 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00038_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00038_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00038_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): anthropology; design thinking (DT); problem and project-based learning (PPBL) approach; responsible innovation; strategic management; transdisciplinary research

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error