Framing Design Thinking: The Concept in Idea and Enactment
Abstract
The concept of design thinking (DT) has emerged in management debates as promising innovation inspired by the way designers work. Despite the growing interest in DT, it is a difficult concept to study due to the lack of coherence between what DT ‘is’ in academic and practical terms. While there are numerous normative and often process‐focused depictions of DT, they seem limited in their ability to account for what occurs in practice. Given the discussion of DT as a concept, and emerging discussion of its enactment, a framing is needed that acknowledges both aspects. This paper proposes a framing of DT that makes it researchable in both theory and practice, and discusses commonalities and discrepancies in how the concept is usually portrayed in the literature. The paper builds on an empirical interview study in six large organizations, which led to the development of a framework structure and the identification of five themes characterizing DT: User focus, Problem framing, Visualization, Experimentation and Diversity. Each theme is associated with specific principles/mindsets, practices and techniques. The main contribution of this paper is to propose a framework that includes DT both as an idea and as the enactment of the idea, inspired by the works of Latour.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI-generated personas can broaden student perspectives but risk essentialising or stereotyping identities if the training data lacks representational depth.
“While AIgenerated personas can broaden student perspectives, they also risk essentialising or stereotyping identities if the training data lacks representational depth.”
From Generative AI in Design Thinking Pedagogy: Enhancing Creativity, Critical Thinking, and Ethical Reasoning in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Carlgren et al., 2016
Design thinking positions students as active participants who generate ideas, repeat processes, and empathise within real-world contexts.
“Based on experiential learning theory (Kolb & Kolb, 2005), design thinking positions students as active participants who generate ideas, repeat processes, and empathise within real-world contexts (Brown, 2008;Carlgren et al., 2016).”
From Generative AI in Design Thinking Pedagogy: Enhancing Creativity, Critical Thinking, and Ethical Reasoning in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Carlgren et al., 2016
The iterative structure of Design Thinking (empathise, define, ideate, prototype, test) served as a scaffold for students to explore GenAI across diverse stages of problem-solving and creative development.
“The iterative structure of Design Thinking, empathise, define, ideate, prototype, test, served as a scaffold for students to explore GenAI across diverse stages of problem-solving and creative development (Brown, 2008;Carlgren et al., 2016).”
From Generative AI in Design Thinking Pedagogy: Enhancing Creativity, Critical Thinking, and Ethical Reasoning in Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as Carlgren et al., 2016
Cites
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…roots of DT in design theory, Liedtka (2015) identified a number of characteristics present in current DT discourse: the focus on wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973), problem exploration (Rittel & Webber, 1973; Schön, 1983; Dorst & Cross, 2001) learning focus and a hypothesis-driven approach…”
BackgroundBell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/hebz/9780198869443.001.0001 · Cited by 10,965 · see citing works
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Building on Latour’s (1986) distinction between the ostensive and performative aspects of power (power exists both in principle and practice), Feldman and Pentland (2003) challenged the traditional understanding of organizational routines as static.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rana, V., Verhoeven, B., & Sharma, M. (2025) · Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice · doi:10.53761/tjse2f36 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
- Authors
- Carlgren, L., Rauth, I., & Elmquist, M.
- Affiliations
- Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Elmquist, Maria
- Venue
- Creativity and Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 38-57
- ISSN
- 0963-1690 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8691
- OpenAlex
- W2192248283
- Cited by
- 625
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 71 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5
- FWCI
- 24.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Creativity and Innovation Management (publishedVersion)
- Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Universität St. Gallen
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Business Strategies and Innovation
- Keywords
- design thinking, innovation management, organizational innovation, user focus, problem framing, visualization, experimentation, diversity, Bruno Latour
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review