Rethinking Design Thinking 
from a Positive Psychology 

Perspective 
 

Janet de Jager 
  orcid.org/0000-0002-4576-9230 

 
 

Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the 
requirements for the degree Masters in Positive 

Psychology at the North-West University 
 
 
 
 
 
Supervisor: Dr CM Niesing  

 Graduation date: May 2021
 



i 
 

Student Declaration 
 
 
I, Janet de Jager, ID Number 8502050172086, declare that this research paper titled 

‘Rethinking Design Thinking from a Positive Psychology Perspective’ is my own work and 

has not been submitted to any tertiary institution before. 
 

  

Janet de Jager Date signed 



ii 
 

Acknowledgements 
 

I sincerely thank and express my true appreciation to: 
 

• My family for their unconditional love, support, and patience throughout 

this journey; 

• My best friend for standing by my side every step of the way; 
 

• Dr Schutte, Prof Wissing, and Ms Liversage for supporting me as a 

student throughout the last two years; 
 

• Dr Niesing for her wisdom and unwavering support, time, and understanding 
– investing in me not only as a researcher but as a person.



iii 
 

Research outline 

This mini dissertation is presented in article format and includes: 

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research problem and Methodology 

The introductory chapter provides an initial literature review, an overview of the 

research problem, and research methodology and design. The introductory chapter is 

formatted according to the American Psychological Association (APA) 7th edition 

referencing style.  

Chapter 2: Manuscript 

The second chapter presents the design and development of a positive design 

thinking process as a design artefact (an artificial human-made object), including a 

literature introduction, problem statement, research method and design, and conceptual 

development of the artefact. The manuscript is formatted according to the Chicago 6th 

edition referencing style. 

Article Title for Submission 

Rethinking Design Thinking from a Positive Psychology Perspective. 

Journal for Submission 

She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. 

Chapter 3: Evaluation, Limitations, and Recommendations 

This chapter concludes the research for this study with a critical reflection on the 

research process, declaration of limitations, and recommendations for future research and 

the promotion of the Masters in Positive Psychology curriculum. The concluding chapter 

is formatted, according to the APA 7th edition referencing style.



iv 
 

Preface 
 

Positive psychology is part of a larger paradigmatic movement called a positive way of 

knowing that employs rigorous scientific methods to pursue an improved understanding of 

optimal human functioning. Positive psychology intervention strategies provide cognitive, 

behavioural, and emotional tools needed to move through life’s challenges with a focus on 

developing strengths rather than fixing weaknesses. The science of positive psychology can 

move people, organisations, and society to a place of flourishing – bringing out the best in 

human capabilities. In recent years there has been a growing interest amongst researchers and 

practitioners to understand better how positive psychology intervention strategies can add 

value to employee well-being. A positive work environment benefits not only the individual 

but also drives organisational performance. Employees who are happy at work are more 

motivated to improve their work performance, which benefits the organisation. Most research 

on organisational well-being focusses on creating a positive work environment in which 

employees can thrive. However, there is a gap in organisational research about how positive 

psychology intervention strategies can enrich the organisations' problem-solving and 

innovation methodologies. Theorists and practitioners widely recognise design thinking as a 

problem-solving and innovation methodology inspired by the way designers work. Whether it 

is used as a mindset, methodology, set of principles, process, or a design science, design 

thinking is used to increase the emotional and symbolic value of the products, services, 

systems, and human experiences within organisations. Design thinking in the 21st century 

provides for a human-centred exploration of the problems and purpose of the present – it is a 

way of thinking rather than a way of doing. This article addresses the gap in organisational 

research on how positive psychology can add value to organisations' problem-solving and 

innovation. Through the synthesis of positive psychology constructs, models, and theories 



v 
 

with the current design thinking process, this study adopts a design science research 

methodology to develop a positive design thinking process as a design artefact (an artificial 

‘human-made’ object). For this study, several positive psychology constructs, models, and 

theories were selected as the positive lens and knowledge base for the design of a positive 

design thinking process. The selection was: creativity, self-efficacy, compassionate love, 

cognitive perspective taking, positive reframing, open-mindedness, openness to experience, 

empathy, self-determination, hope, and flow. The results show that the structure and 

functionality of a positive design thinking process consist of four main components: (a) a core 

space of thinking, (b) different domains of thinking within the core space, (c) internal 

processes, and (d) the outcomes of the internal processes. The findings of this study suggest 

that looking at design thinking through a positive lens shifts the focus from solving problems 

to developing the psychological strengths of individual design thinkers. If the focus moves to 

the individual design thinker, the process can result in more relevant, creative, and innovative 

solutions. 

 

Keywords: Positive Psychology, Design Thinking, Positive Design, Design Science 

Research, Employee well-being 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



vi 
 

Contents 
 

Student Declaration ......................................................................................................................  i 

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................  ii 

Research outline ............................................................................................................................ iii 

Preface ..........................................................................................................................................  iv 

Contents ........................................................................................................................................  vi 

List of tables ................................................................................................................................ viii 

List of figures ................................................................................................................................  ix 

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research Problem and Methodology .......................................  1 

Background to the study… .................................................................................................. 1 

Problem statement ............................................................................................................... 4 

Literature review ............................................................................................................... 18 

Research aims and objectives ............................................................................................ 18 

Method… ........................................................................................................................... 18 

Structure of the Research Study… .................................................................................... 35 

Dissemination of Information… ........................................................................................ 35 

Budget ................................................................................................................................ 36 

Timeline ............................................................................................................................. 36 

References ......................................................................................................................... 38 

Chapter 2: Manuscript .................................................................................................................. 47 

Journal requirements ......................................................................................................... 47 

Title page ........................................................................................................................... 60 

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 60 

Introduction… ................................................................................................................... 61 

Objective of the study… .................................................................................................... 62 

Research design… ............................................................................................................. 68 

Conceptual development of a Positive Design Thinking process ..................................... 72 

A Positive Design Thinking process .................................................................................. 85 

Conclusion… ..................................................................................................................... 87 

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 87 

References ......................................................................................................................... 88 

Chapter 3: Evaluation, limitations, and recommendations ....................................................... 92 



vii 
 

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 92 

Evaluation of the research process .................................................................................... 93 

Limitations ......................................................................................................................... 95 

Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 95 

References ......................................................................................................................... 97 

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 98 

Appendix 1: Ethics exemption… ....................................................................................   98 

Appendix 2: TREE training certificates .............................................................................. 99 

Appendix 3: Information sampling and content analysis… .............................................. 101 

Appendix 4: Editing declaration… .................................................................................... 117 

Appendix 5: Solemn Declaration and Permission to Submit ............................................ 118 

Appendix 6: Turnitin digital report ................................................................................... 119 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



viii 
 

List of Tables 
 
 
Chapter 1 

Table 1. Information sources for the proposed study… ................................................... 23 

Table 2. Selection criteria for articles ............................................................................... 24 

Table 3. Structure of research study… ............................................................................. 35 

Table 4. Budget for the study ............................................................................................ 36 

Table 5. Timeline… .......................................................................................................... 37 

Chapter 2 

Table A. Journal selection and search results ................................................................... 70 

Table B. Online magazine selection and search results .................................................... 71 



ix 
 

List of Figures 
 
 
Chapter 2 

Figure 1. Empathetic Creativity Space .............................................................................. 73 

Figure 2. The Society Domain… ....................................................................................... 76 

Figure 3. The Self Domain… ............................................................................................ 79 

Figure 4. The Solutions Domain… .................................................................................... 82 

Figure 5. Overlapping of Domains .................................................................................... 84 

Figure 6. The Self as the anchor… .................................................................................... 85 

Figure 7. Circular Positive Design Thinking process ........................................................ 86 

Figure 8. Linear Positive Design Thinking process .......................................................... 87 

Chapter 3 

Figure A. Visual representation of the Design Science Research journey… .................... 94 



1 
 

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research Problem and Methodology 
 
 

Background to the Study 
 

Positive psychology rests on the premise that despite the most severe difficulties, 

individuals can adjust well to, and even thrive within life’s vicissitudes (Compton & 

Hoffman, 2019). When individuals focus on using and expressing their strengths, rather 

than fixating on their weaknesses, they become happier and more satisfied with their 

lives (Money et al., 2009). 

According to Donaldson et al. (2015), positive psychology is a promising future-

oriented subarea within the broader discipline of psychology. It is part of a larger 

paradigmatic movement called a positive way of knowing (Avital et al., 2009) that 

employs rigorous scientific methods to understand well-being in order to help individuals 

guard against pathologies (Donaldson et al., 2015). 

In modern-day practice and research, positive psychology concerns itself with 

psychosocial theories and intervention strategies that provide a deeper understanding of 

the positive, adaptive, creative, and emotionally fulfilling elements of human 

behaviour. These elements include the biological, personal, relational, institutional, 

cultural, and global dimensions of human life (Compton & Hoffman, 2019). 

Positive psychology provides individuals with the cognitive, behavioural, and 

emotional tools they need to move through life’s challenges, with a focus on developing 

their strengths rather than fixing their weaknesses. The science of positive psychology 

can move people, organisations, and society to a place of optimal functioning by bringing 

out the best in human capabilities. 

 



2 
 

 

Positive Psychology Promotes Growth and Performance in Organisations 
 

Researchers and practitioners have shown considerable interest in understanding 

the impact of positive psychology interventions in organisations in recent years (Money 

et al., 2009). Employees who experience positive mental health at work perform better, 

have better social relationships, and better physical health (Davenport et al., 2016). At the 

same time, a positive work environment can contribute to an employee’s well-being 

across other domains of life (Money et al., 2009). 

The field of positive psychology studies the factors that drive and motivate 

employees to flourish and achieve their full work potential (Davenport et al., 2016). 

Promoting positive mental health at work can provide considerable benefits to 

organisations. It is, therefore, sensible for organisations to invest in initiatives that 

promote employee well-being because work well-being directly affects organisational 

performance (Money et al., 2009). 

The literature thus far shows us that the positive institution pillar in 

organisations supports positive employee behaviour (Money et al., 2009).. However, 

there is still a gap in organisational research to explore how positive psychology can add 

value to stakeholder relationships, marketing initiatives, operational efficiency, supply 

chain management, investor relations, governance, corporate responsibility, 

sustainability, and reputation (Money et al., 2009). This gap includes the need to 

investigate how positive psychology constructs, models, and theories can enrich the 

problem-solving and innovation methodologies used in organisations that promote both 

individual well-being and organisational performance. 

 

 



3 
 

Design Thinking promotes Performance and Innovation in Organisations 
 

In the 21st century the design thinking methodology is applied across and 

within organisations to enhance the emotional and symbolic value of their products, 

services, systems, and human experiences. As a process, design thinking provides 

organisations with the tools to solve problems and address innovation from a human-

centred perspective (Carlgren et al., 2016). Design thinking in organisations is applied 

as a way of thinking rather than a way of doing that is inspired by how designers work. 

The design thinking methodology incorporates theories from different disciplines, 

including design, psychology, education, and cognitive science (Dorst, 2011; 

Buchanan, 2019). The integrated stream of knowledge from this variety of disciplines 

provides a rich, varied understanding of the complexities of human reality (Dorst, 

2011). 

The design thinking process combines divergent and convergent thinking 

(Brenner et al., 2016) and consists of a sequence of interactions, or steps, that the 

design thinker performs to realise the design intent (Sun & Liu, 2008). Even though 

the design thinking process is applied differently across and within organisations, the 

process is most commonly operationalised through these actions: define the problem, 

find the need, synthesise, ideate, prototype, and test (Brenner et al., 2016; Grots & 

Creuznacher, 2016). 

Design thinkers move between three key thinking spaces (Brown & Wyatt, 

2010): inspiration, ideation, and implementation. Within these three spaces, the design 

thinking process attempts to answer these questions: what is, what if, what wows, what 

works (Liedtka, 2014). 

What is examines current reality, whereas what if uses the learning from the 

current reality to imagine possible and better future outcomes. What wows guides 



4 
 

decisions and manages the direction of the design focus, and what works takes the 

design focus into real-world interaction with actual users through small experiments 

(Liedtka, 2014). 

During the past decade, design thinking theorists, writers, and practitioners have 

expressed the need to re-conceptualise design thinking and move away from being 

problem-focused to being promise-focused. Ruitenberg and Desmet (2012) theorised this 

shift in focus as well-being driven design. Well-being driven design supports the 

principles of design as the good, the just, the useful, and the satisfying in human 

experiences (Buchanan, 2019). 

In response to the need to rethink design thinking from a well-being perspective, 

concepts such as designers’ flow (Safin et al., 2016), positive design, and design for 

subjective well-being (Desmet, 2018) have emerged. These emerging trends show a 

positive change in perspective on what is, what if, what wows, and what works within 

organisations. 

Problem Statement 
 

As mentioned in the previous section, the design thinking process most 

commonly used in organisations includes these actions: define the problem, find the 

need, synthesise, ideate, prototype, and test (Brenner et al., 2016; Grots & Creuznacher, 

2016). These actions can also be categorised as different modes of thinking, namely, an 

empathise-mode (deeply observing and understanding), the define mode, the ideate 

mode, the prototype mode, and the validation mode (Rauth et al., 2010). These modes of 

thinking enable design thinkers to explore problems more widely and deeply and take 

focused action (“What is the Framework for Innovation,” 2015). 



5 
 

By synthesising positive psychology constructs, models, and theories with the 

design thinking process this study investigated the design and development of a positive 

design thinking process to address the gap in positive psychology organisational 

research on problem-solving and innovation as mentioned in the previous section. Re-

conceptualising the design thinking process through a positive lens might increase 

organisations’ capacity to design more satisfying and morally robust solutions and 

innovations by drawing from the best of human capabilities.  

For this mini-dissertation, the most commonly used design thinking process, that 

is the process categorised as several modes of thinking, was used as the baseline of a 

positive design thinking process. 

Literature Review 
 

The first part of the literature review presents the positive psychology constructs, 

models, and theories that were used to inform the design of a positive design thinking 

process. The first part of the review frames the positive psychology lens. The second part 

of the review discusses design thinking's inherent complexities as a way of thinking, 

reasoning, and meaning-making within a design and management discourse. 

Constructs, Models, and Theories: A Positive Psychology Lens 
 

This study investigated how a positive lens of creativity, self-efficacy, 

compassionate love, cognitive perspective taking, positive reframing, open-

mindedness, openness to experience, and empathy can provide a knowledge base for 

the design of a positive design thinking process. The investigation also included a 

synthesis of the self-determination theory, hope theory, and flow theory with the 

current design thinking process. The section that follows briefly introduces each of the 

positive psychology constructs, models, and theories used in this study. 

 



6 
 

 

Creativity 

According to Huang and Luthans (2015), individuals rely on their positive 

psychological strengths to generate creativity. From this perspective, to enhance 

creative experiences and creative output, emphasis should be on the psychological well-

being of the creative thinker and not their creative skills. 

Engaging in creative activities increases feelings of pleasure, autonomy, and 

intrinsic motivation (Oriol et al., 2016). Creative people enjoy what they are doing for 

the sake of doing it. The process of discovery is the reward in itself. Creativity can 

enhance the experiences of self-acceptance, personal growth, meaning in life, 

environmental mastery, and positive relationships (Tamannaeifar & Motaghedifard, 

2014). Subjective well-being and positive self-assessment are also positively associated 

with higher levels of creativity, modesty, appreciation of beauty, judgment, and love of 

learning (Charyton et al., 2009). 

Social adaptation plays an essential role in creativity (To et al., 2012) as it can 

facilitate connecting the dots and thinking outside the box, which are both essential 

aspects of creative experiences. To et al. (2012) refer to a within-person relationship 

between creativity, intrapersonal strengths, and interpersonal support. 

According to Ashton-James and Chartrand (2009), social interaction can enhance 

creativity, which requires convergent thinking. However, according to the authors, this 

social interaction does not benefit innovation, which requires divergent thinking. 

Creativity seems to be facilitated by social interaction and the effects of mimicry, 

whereas novel ideas are stimulated by a social disconnect (Ashton-James & Chartrand, 

2009). 



7 
 

In a study conducted by Tamannaeifar and Motaghedifard (2014), a significant 

relationship was found to exists between self-efficacy, subjective well-being, and 

creativity. The research findings indicated that an individual’s subjective well-being 

could be increased by strengthening self-efficacy and optimising creativity. 

Optimism is also a key predictor of creativity because it both directs and 

mediates positive and negative affects (Rego et al., 2012). Optimistic people are 

creative because of their positive explanatory style and because they tend to believe that 

they can overcome obstacles in their current situations to achieve their goals. 

Huang and Luthans (2015) used the term creative agency, which they defined as 

the capacity to act effectively and regulate oneself in complex situations to support 

successful problem-solving. Creative self-efficacy naturally leads to a greater creative 

agency, resulting in more creative output, which, in turn, strengthens creative agency, 

leading to yet more creative self-efficacy (Royalty et al., 2012). 

A positive lens on creativity, which is considered one of the key attributes of 

design thinking, can help design thinkers approach creative experiences, creative agency, 

and creative outputs in a way that fosters and promotes psychological strengths. An 

intrinsically motivated design thinker can experience self-fulfilment in the creative 

process itself, resulting in improved creative performance. Understanding the social 

aspects that affect creativity and innovation adds valuable insights for a positive design 

thinking process. 

Self-Efficacy 

Self-efficacy has a widely acclaimed theoretical foundation and an extensive 

knowledge base due to the seminal work of Albert Bandura (as cited in Lunenburg, 

2011). According to Albert Bandura, self-efficacy as a core belief in one’s own abilities, 



8 
 

is the foundation of human motivation, performance, accomplishment, and emotional 

well-being (Bandura & Adams, 1977). 

Self-efficacy is concerned with the belief that we can influence the events that 

affect our lives. The factors that serve as self-motivators are rooted in the confidence we 

have that our actions can make a difference (Bandura, 2010). Unless people believe that 

their actions can produce the desired effect, they have little incentive to continue with an 

activity or to persevere when faced with difficulties. Lunenburg (2011) identifies the four 

sources of self-efficacy as past performance, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and 

emotional cues. 

In more recent literature, self-efficacy is reported as one of the most powerful 

predictors of creative-efficacy (Kim et al., 2019). Self-efficacy facilitates the initial 

decision to engage in the effortful and persistent pursuit of creativity, which requires 

cognitive, emotional, and behavioural efforts. Understanding self-efficacy along with 

reflective self-efficacy (the perception of how others assess our ability to perform a task) 

provides a more refined explanation of the efficacy-creativity relationship as opposed to 

only considering self-assessed self-efficacy (Kim et al., 2019). 

From the above perspective, self-efficacy is an essential contributor to a positive 

design thinking process. Unless the design thinker believes that their perseverance will 

have fruitful outcomes, they will be less motivated to take on the challenging task of 

problem solving and innovation, resulting in weaker performance and ineffective results. 

Investigating the relationship between self-assessed self-efficacy, reflective self-efficacy, 

and creativity provided promising insights into the design and development of a positive 

design thinking process. 

Compassionate Love 



9 
 

Compassionate love is a type of love experienced for a variety of others, 

including all of humankind (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). Chiesi et al. (2020), defined 

compassionate love as an awareness and understanding of others’ suffering; connecting 

with their distress and being emotionally and cognitively moved to relieve their suffering. 

Social scientists interested in compassionate love theories have argued that this love 

promotes the greatest of social good (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005). 

Compassionate love overlaps with empathy and altruism. However, 

compassionate love is distinct from these constructs as it includes thoughts (noticing 

and becoming aware), emotions (feeling and resonating), and behaviours (responding 

and wishing to act) (Chiesi et al., 2020). 

In contrast to compassionate love, empathy is directed towards a specific other 

and does not necessarily involve a behavioural activation. Compassionate love differs 

from empathy, as it is both more encompassing and more enduring (Fehr & Sprecher, 

2008). Compassionate love is also different from altruism, which has a broader range of 

internal motivations than compassionate love’s core motivation to alleviate the suffering 

of others (Chiesi et al., 2020). 

In a study conducted by Fehr and Sprecher (2008), where they developed the 

Compassionate Love Scale, the researchers found that the experience of having 

compassionate love for others ultimately increases an individual’s well-being. The 

researchers also found that compassionate love is likely to lead to prosocial behaviour. 

Based on their research, Fehr and Sprecher (2008) developed the following working 

definition of compassionate love: compassionate love is an attitude towards others 

extending to all of humanity; compassionate love contains feelings, cognitions, and 



10 
 

behaviours that are oriented towards the concern for others, including supporting and 

helping to alleviate suffering. 

From the above citations, compassionate love is activated by a deep care for . 

However, compassionate love stretches beyond caring and resonating with others’ 

suffering. It includes taking action and solving problems. A positive perspective on 

design thinking benefits from the behavioural aspects of compassionate love theories by 

encouraging design thinkers to deeply observe, understand, and take positive action s in 

the empathy mode.  

Perspective-Taking, Reframing, Open-Mindedness, and Openness to Experiences 

Cognitive perspective-taking involves drawing inferences about other people’s 

beliefs, intentions, and thoughts (Singer & Klimecki, 2014) and makes it possible to 

understand differing views. Perspective-taking allows people to view and treat others in 

a way that is more like they would treat themselves, which increases compassionate 

emotions (Hodges et al., 2011). 

Positive reframing is defined as the ability to view a situation in a positive light, 

as opposed to the traditionally negative view (Lambert et al., 2009). Individuals with 

higher dispositional gratitude are more likely to apply positive reframing, which truly 

helps them to live more manageable, meaningful, and comprehensible lives (Lambert et 

al., 2009). 

Open-minded cognition is an essential component of intellectual humility. It is 

marked by a willingness to consider a variety of intellectual perspectives, values, 

attitudes, opinions, and beliefs, even when it is contradictory to the self (Wilson et al., 

2017). According to Baehrr (2011), open-mindedness is widely recognised as an 

intellectual virtue and strongly relates to other intellectual virtues such as fairness, 



11 
 

impartiality, and honesty, as well as specific cognitive abilities such as comprehension, 

conception, and imagination. 

Openness to experience stretches our usual way of thinking about ourselves and 

the world expanding our propensity for deep emotional experience (Silvia et al., 2015). 

It relates to experiences of awe and is considered an essentially aesthetic trait. People 

who have high levels of openness to experience are more likely to present awe-related 

emotions and capture these emotions using words such as amazement, elevation, 

fascination, and wonder (Silvia et al., 2015). 

Design thinkers who are open to other’s perspective, intellectually humble, are 

able to reframe negative experiences, and stretch their usual way of thinking might 

solve problems and innovate in ways that resonate with the real, lived-out experiences 

of others. A positive design thinking process encourages these different frames of mind 

in order to result in more positive outcomes. 

Empathy 

Empathy is the capacity to resonate and share the positive and negative feelings 

of others. When someone is empathetic, they feel happy when they share others' joys and 

sad when they share in their experiences of suffering (Singer & Klimecki, 2014). 

Empathy has enjoyed more research in the economics and business sector than in 

areas of psychology and philosophy, where the term empathy was originally 

conceptualised (Köppen & Meinel, 2015). Nevertheless, even though empathy is 

considered as one of the most basic and desirable principles in organisations, it has its 

pitfalls. For example, it is important not to confuse oneself with the other person’s 

suffering (Köppen & Meinel, 2015). If this separation is not present, it is called emotional 

contagion, which may lead to empathetic distress; a strong aversive and self-oriented 

response to others’ suffering (Singer & Klimecki, 2014). 



12 
 

Empathetic concern is a necessary mindset in the design thinking process. 

However, a positive perspective on empathy revealed that empathetic concern in 

itself is not enough to initiate positive action, effective problem solving, or 

innovation. Being mindful of empathy's positive and negative aspects is a 

fundamental principle in a positive design thinking process. 

Self-Determination Theory 

Self-determination theory is an empirically based macro-theory of human 

motivation. The theory consists of three basic assumptions (Deci & Ryan, 2000): (a) 

people are growth-oriented and motivated by personal interest, (b) people move towards 

higher levels of psychological growth when they engage in activities that interest them, 

(c) the social context that surrounds these activities can either support or inhibit growth. 

Self-determination theory considers different types of motivation, focusing on 

autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation (lack of motivation) as 

predictors of well-being outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2008). The theory also addresses the 

social conditions that can either enhance or decrease the different types of motivations. 

Self-determination theory examines the differential relationship between intrinsic 

versus extrinsic goals and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2008). According to Koestner and 

Hope (2014), motivation driven by personal interest and meaning is superior to 

motivation driven by external rewards and pressure. The interest and value people assign 

to their goals, and the nature of their aspirations predict how likely they are to satisfy 

their psychological needs when achieving their goals (Koestner & Hope, 2014). 

Hope Theory 

Hope theory considers our emotional reactions and experiences associated with 

goal pursuit (Lopez et al., 2018). Hopeful thoughts reflect our belief that we have the 



13 
 

willpower (agency) and way power (pathways) to achieve our goals (Snyder et al., 

2002). 

Both the hope theory (Snyder et al., 2002) and the definition of hope by Lopez et 

al. (2018), emphasise the emotional and cognitive aspects associated with goal-directed 

behaviour. According to the theory, hope overlaps with other constructs such as 

optimism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem (Lopez et al., 2018). Hope theory suggests that 

by combining agency and pathway thinking, one can generate hopeful thoughts and reach 

one’s goals. The theory consists of three components: goals (what one wants to achieve), 

pathways (the route one takes to reach one’s goals), and agency (what one believes one 

can achieve) (Lopez et al., 2018). The feedback loop is an essential aspect of the hope 

theory. In the feedback loop, positive emotions will positively enforce goal pursuit, 

whereas negative emotions will curtail the process (Lopez et al., 2018). 

Understanding the various overlapping constructs of hope were important to the 

effective design of a positive design thinking process. The goals, pathways, agency, and 

feedback loop within a positive design thinking process either support or discourage the 

positive effects of the process for the individual design thinker as well as the intended 

audience. 

Flow Theory 

Flow theory contributes to the understanding of optimal human functioning. The 

enjoyment of intrinsically motivated activities will lead to moments of flow, and in 

return, flow is the reward of our intrinsic motivations (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2014). 

Being in flow means experiencing a sacred moment of mastery, control, and autonomy. 

The flow theory describes how an individual’s attention is structured, and the ingredients 

required to be fully immersed in the moment (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2014). 



14 
 

The main characteristics of the flow state include the merging of action and 

awareness, having a sense of control, and experiencing an altered sense of time 

(Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2014). When people are in a state of flow, their brains produce a 

significant increase in norepinephrine, dopamine, anandamide, serotonin, and endorphins 

(Kotler, 2015). These chemicals enhance their performance, making them perform 

stronger and quicker. When in flow, people are functioning at their full biological 

capacity. 

To enter a state of flow, a person has to have a clear set of goals 

(Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2014). Goals provide for intense focus by channelling an 

individual’s attention. Another condition of experiencing flow is the balance between 

perceived challenge and skills. When the perceived challenge exceeds a person’s skills, 

they become anxious; when their skills exceed the perceived challenge, they become 

bored (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 2014). 

Understanding the balance between skills and challenge were important 

considerations for a positive design thinking process. Questions about how to strike an 

effective balance between being submerged and motivated, or isolated, disconnected, 

and bored were considered in the development of a positive design thinking process. 

Design Thinking from Different Perspectives 
 

Despite the recent increase in design thinking popularity, there is no agreed 

definition of design thinking in academic and practical terms. It is still unclear whether 

design thinking provides a new way to design or a way to organise a non-design 

activity. Brown and Katz (2011) asserted that the rising interest in design thinking 

relates to a culture shift where the best designers and thinkers apply their skills 

collaboratively to address problems that matter to society. 



15 
 

According to Reimann and Schilke (2011), design thinking is a creative, 

individual process influenced by social-level factors. Approaching complex human-

centred problems from a design thinking perspective provides an opportunity for socially 

engaged design. This section discusses the roots of design thinking in creative thinking 

theories; design thinking as a way of thinking, reasoning, and meaning-making; and the 

development of design thinking from a design to a management discourse. 

Creative Thinking Theories and Design Thinking  

Herbert A. Simon first mentioned design as a way of thinking rather than doing in 

his book ‘The Science of the Artificial’ Simon (1968 as cited by Von Thienen et al., 

2017). Simon’s subsequent research in the 1970s shaped the foundational principles of 

what became known as design thinking. However, the roots of design thinking can be 

traced back to the creative thinking theories of John. E. Arnold in the 1940s (Von 

Thienen et al., 2017). 

Arnold’s creative thinking theories were driven by his beliefs that happiness 

requires creativity; that creativity is an attribute of healthy human living; and that the 

creative process is a way for people to realise their individual potential. Arnold saw the 

creative thinker as someone who frames problems in a way that aids creative solutions, 

who has a spirit of inquiry, and a drive to improve the things that matter (Von Thienen et 

al., 2017). 

Design Thinking as Reasoning and Meaning-Making  

The thinking side of design, as an everyday human activity, is a keen interest for 

modern-day researchers. According to Reimann and Schilke (2011), thinking in a design 

way increases positive affect and cognition, which results from heightened attention, 

memory, acquisition, and learning. 



16 
 

Liedtka (2015) defined design thinking as a creative, subjective, and emotional 

alternative to analytical logic, which requires a combination of analytical and creative 

reasoning. Lissack (2019) conceptualised design thinking as a cognitive process of inter-

and intrapersonal meaning-making. Design thinking, as a meaning-making process, 

relates to the notion of agency and choice, how we think about things, and cognitively 

constructs what we need to feel good about in our lives. 

From Lissack’s (2019) perspective, individuals construct and evaluate their 

needs through everyday design thinking. When they approach their lives as design 

thinkers, they become more self-aware of their choices, which leads to better coping 

with life’s challenges and higher life satisfaction. 

Designerly Thinking and Design Thinking 

Even though design thinking is primarily understood from a thinking perspective, 

the discourse has not yet been separated from the design profession. Design thinking 

should be viewed in terms of two distinct discourses: designerly thinking (design) and 

design thinking (management) (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). This pluralistic 

perspective should be considered by any academic researchers seeking to make a 

valuable contribution to the knowledge spectrum. 

Designerly Thinking as a Design Discourse. Designerly thinking relates to a 

professional designer's skills and competence and is rooted in the academic field of 

design. The designerly way of thinking has been discussed in research for over 40 years, 

while design thinking has only developed over the last decade and relates only slightly to 

the design discourse (Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). The theoretical perspectives on 

design and designerly thinking can be categorised into five sub-discourses: (a) the 

creation of an artefact, (b) a reflective practice, (c) a problem-solving activity, (d) a way 



17 
 

of reasoning and making sense of things, and (e) the creation of meaning (Johansson-

Sköldberg et al., 2013). 

Designers are taught to move naturally through three spaces of creation, namely, 

inspiration, ideation, and implementation (Brown & Katz, 2011). The thinking about 

these spaces was formalised into a process that moved beyond the sphere of design 

professionals and became known in organisations, becoming a strategic decision-

making approach. 

When designers become part of an interdisciplinary team, they develop more 

attractive ideas and solutions that are more relevant to complex human-centred 

problems (Brown & Katz, 2011). Similarly, design thinking draws design out of the 

creative studio into the boardroom to make use of its disruptive potential. 

Design Thinking as a Management Discourse. Design thinking as a 

management discourse is an alternative approach to problem forming and problem-

solving that integrates creative human, business, and technical factors (Reimann & 

Schilke, 2011). Design thinking is an ongoing cycle of generating ideas (abduction), 

predicting consequences (deduction), and testing and generalising (induction) 

(Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013). Liedtka (2015) frames this cycle as a generic process 

which moves from insight into the problem, to the formulation of concepts, prototyping, 

testing, and selecting the optimal solutions.  

The design thinking process is used in different ways, both across and within 

organisations (Lindberg et al., 2011). A qualitative inquiry conducted by Carlgren et al. 

(2016), into the use of design thinking in five large organisations found that the design 

thinking process was not being practised consistently with the process described by 

theorists. Based on the research findings of the study, five core themes were identified: 

user focus, problem framing, visualisation, experimentation, and diversity. Each of these 



18 
 

themes consists of a set of principles, mindsets, practices, and techniques, which are 

sometimes manifested in a process, and sometimes not (Carlgren et al., 2016). 

 
Research Aims and Objectives 

 
This study aimed to investigate how positive psychology constructs, models, and 

theories can enhance the design thinking process. This study synthesised the design 

thinking process with positive psychology constructs, models, and theories to present a 

positive design thinking process as a design artefact (an artificial ‘human-made’ object). 

It also reflected on the form and function of the artefact through design theorising. 

Method 
 

This research study adopted a pragmatic research philosophy that applied both 

inductive and deductive reasoning. This philosophy was operationalised through the 

design science research methodology. Design science research enabled the researcher 

to design and develop a positive design thinking process as an artefact to meet the aim 

of the study.  

Design science research is an important methodology for applicable yet 

rigorous research (Peffers et al., 2006). Since the introduction of design science 

research in the early 90s in the research and design of information systems, design 

science has become widely recognised as a research methodology that focusses on the 

pragmatic creation and investigation of the artificial (Gregor & Hevner, 2013). 

Design science research is pragmatic because of its strong emphasis on 

relevance (Hevner, 2007). The research process involves identifying problems and 

designing theory-based solutions that are relevant to the specific environment. Design 

science research also provides a useful channel for collaboration between industry and 

academia. 



19 
 

However, design science research is not only defined and evaluated by its 

practicality. According to Hevner et al. (2019), sound design science research is a 

synergy between scientific rigour and practical relevance.  

By synthesising scientific rigour and practical relevance, design science 

research aims to extend our human capabilities through the design of new and 

innovative artefacts (Hevner et al., 2019). These artefacts can be presented as 

constructs, models, methods, and instantiations (Van der Merwe et al., 2020). To 

achieve the aim of the study, a positive design thinking process was theorised through 

scientific rigour and practically constructed to present the integration of design 

thinking and specific positive psychology constructs, models, and theories. 

Research Design 
 

The proposed research study followed the design science research process as 

defined by Peffers et al. (2006) and incorporated Hevner’s (2007) three cycles of design 

science, both of which differentiates design science from other research methodologies. 

The Design Science Research Process of Peffers et al. (2006) 

According to Peffers et al. (2018), the design science research process, with its 

focus on artefact development, facilitates the design of practical and useful artefacts. The 

process allows for creative, innovative exploration of possibilities and improvements 

without the need to provide proof that they are the optimal solution. 

The design science research process (Peffer et al., 2006) includes these six steps: 

identification and motivation, objectives for solution, design and development, 

demonstration, evaluation, and communication. As the objective of the study was to 

design and develop a positive design thinking process, the study moved between the first 

three steps. Step 1 was to identify and motivate the need for a positive design thinking 

process with a literature review. Step 2 was to identify the specific principles and 



20 
 

objective of a positive design thinking process from a positive psychology perspective, 

as presented in the literature review. Step 3, all about design and development, was to 

practically construct the positive design thinking artefact by synthesising existing design 

thinking and positive psychology theories, models, and constructs. The study concludes 

with suggestions for further research on and the practical demonstration, evaluation, and 

communication of the designed positive design thinking process. 

Hevner (2007) Three Cycles of Design Science Activities 

Hevner (2007) presented three closely related design science cycles of activities: 

relevance cycle, rigour cycle, and central design cycle. These three cycles support the 

claim that design science research is pragmatic. 

The relevance, rigour, and design cycles require that the knowledge base 

contribution is relevant and useful to both practitioners and the academic audience 

(Hevner, 2007), which supports the aim of this study.  

Content Analysis 

In design science research, designing the artefact requires a strong knowledge 

base. The knowledge base provides the researcher with the information needed to 

complete the design and development process. This study used content analysis to 

identify and analyse information sources to build a knowledge base for the artefact’s 

design and development. 

Content analysis is a powerful data reduction technique that combines 

elements of document analysis and thematic analysis (Bowen, 2009). Document 

analysis is the skimming, reading through, and interpretation of a source, while 

thematic analysis is a more careful, focused re-reading and reviewing of sources. 

In both document analysis and thematic analysis, the researcher codes and 

structures selected information into several categories based on related characteristics, 



21 
 

to uncover themes that are pertinent to the research objectives (Bowen, 2009). As with 

document analysis and thematic analysis, content analysis is an analytical procedure to 

find, select, appraise, and synthesise data from different sources of information. 

It is essential that the researchers not treat the variety of sources as precise, 

accurate, or complete truth (Bowen, 2009). Instead of merely lifting words and passages 

from the sources, the researcher should first determine the relevance of the information 

to the research problem and the specific objective of the study by asking whether or not 

the content fits the study's conceptual framework. 

Content analysis aims to evaluate information in a way that empirical knowledge 

is produced. This evaluation enables the researcher to have a deeper understanding of the 

research topic and meet the objective of the study. With content analysis, the researchers 

should always strive to maintain a balance between objectivity and sensitivity (Bowen, 

2009). 

In the study, content analysis enabled the researcher to systematically and 

objectively identify specific characteristics and themes from both positive psychology 

and design thinking information sources. These characteristics and themes became the 

knowledge base to conceptualise, design, and develop the positive design thinking 

process. 

The researcher conducted a structured review of the identified information 

sources to determine the codes and categories relating to the research objective. The 

codes and categories, along with the findings, are discussed in the study's design and 

development section. 

 

Information Sampling 
 



22 
 

In design science research, scientific theory and various data sources are 

integrated to allow for more creativity and richer opportunities (Hevner, 2007). For this 

mini-dissertation, a selection of academic and non-academic articles was sourced based 

on their credibility, accuracy, original purpose, target audience, context, and 

representativeness in relation to the framework of the study (Bowen, 2009). 

Because the content was human-coded within a short time frame, the total 

number of information sources was limited to 30. The focus of this mini-dissertation was 

not on analysing and interpreting content, but on designing and developing a new artefact 

– the main aim of the study. The content analysis was used as the knowledge base for the 

positive design thinking process. 

Content was coded along the design science research dimensions and research 

objective. From the content analysis, a concept matrix was constructed. The matrix 

helped the researcher form a concept-centric position, which fostered an understanding 

of the research beyond descriptive content summarisation. The matrix helped with the 

overall distribution of characteristics within the theoretical dimensions defined in the 

content criteria and paved the way for further design and development. 

Information Sources 

The content analysis search process provided the grounding rationale for the 

artefact. This study sought to go beyond the prior analysis of positive psychology 

constructs, models, and theories to investigate new synergies between positive 

psychology and design thinking. The researcher focussed attention on relevant 

academic journals and online magazine publications (see Table 1) to identify which 

articles should be included in the content analysis. These journals and magazines were 

shortlisted based on their mission statements and predominance of publications related 

to the proposed study. 



23 
 

 
Table 1 

Information sources for the proposed study 
 

Journals (academic) International Magazines 
(non-academic) 

Journal of Positive Psychology Harvard Business Review 

Journal of Happiness Studies Forbes Magazine 

Applied Psychology: Health and Wellbeing WIRED 

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Fast Company 

Journal of Personality and Individual Differences  

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships  

Journal of Social and Humanistic Psychology  

Design Management review  

Design Issues  

Journal for Design, Innovation and Economics  

Creativity and Innovation Management  

International Journal of Art & Design Education  

 
 

Selection Criteria  

All articles were filtered in two steps. First, articles were selected by title, 

keywords, and abstract. In the second step, remaining articles were reviewed for their 

suitability according to predefined criteria (see Table 2). Articles that appeared to have 

good potential to anchor the research in the positive psychology and design thinking 

paradigms were shortlisted and filtered based on the predefined criteria. 

 

 

 

 

Table 2 



24 
 

Selection criteria for information sampling 
 

Journals (academic) International Magazines (non-academic) 

Search strings Articles were selected based on their accurate 
relation to the search strings in the article’s 
title, abstract, and keywords. Content sources 
returned by the search query were screened 
for appropriate fit to the research objective. 

Citations The article selection was influenced by the 
number of times other authors or articles had 
cited it. Articles with higher citation instances 
were given preference. 

Publication date A temporal boundary condition of 10 years 
(that is, articles from 2010 onwards), was 
used to ensure the modern relevance of the 
study. 

Nature of the article Articles had to focus on the specific 
construct, model, or theory and had to be 
descriptive or explanatory. Design thinking 
articles had to describe the process or specific 
steps, actions, tools, or methods within design 
thinking and not only focus on the 
methodology. That is, articles with a focus on 
validation or intervention studies were 
excluded. 

Domain Positive psychology articles had to look at the 
specific construct, model, or theory from a 
broad perspective and not be domain or 
context-specific. However, design thinking 
articles needed to specifically focus on the 
application of design thinking in the 
organisational or workplace environment. 

 

Procedure 
 

According to Bider et al. (2013), there are many ways to conduct the design 

science research process while still staying within the design science paradigm. To 

achieve the aim of this study, the research process started by describing the situation 

(Step 1: presenting and motivating the problem) and setting the requirements (Step 2: 



25 
 

defining the objective of the solution), before moving to the design and development 

stage (Step 3). 

Identification and Motivation 

The research study started by identifying the problem and justifying the value of 

the solution. Peffer et al. (2006) asserted that since the problem definition is an integral 

part of developing an effective artefact, it is useful to divide the problem into small 

conceptual particles. Peffers et al. (2006) referred to this activity as atomising the 

problem. By atomising the problem in the literature review of this study, the researchers 

could capture the complexities of the problem. 

Objectives of the Solution 

Based on the literature review, the researcher proposed a solution to meet the 

objective of the study, which was to design a new positive design thinking process. 

According to Peffers et al. (2006), the objective of a design science research solution 

can either be quantitative, where the desired solution would be better than the existing 

one, or qualitative, where the new artefact is expected to support a problem that has not 

yet been addressed. 

In the proposed study, the objective was to find a quantitative solution. The 

researchers investigated the possibility of designing and developing a positive design 

thinking process to improve the existing design thinking process. 

Design and Development  

This study's main focus was to construct the artefactual solution by 

synthesising existing design thinking and positive psychology constructs, models, 

and theories. Achieving this objective involved sourcing information, content 

analysis, and constructing the artefact. 



26 
 

Sourcing Information. The process started with the gathering of information. 

Sources included academic, theoretical sources and non-academic material as 

described in the information sampling section of this paper. 

Content Analysis. The researcher analysed the content to find, select, 

appraise, and synthesise the data contained in each source. Through content 

analysis, the researcher determined the artefact’s desired functionality and its 

general architectural structure (Peffers et al., 2006). 

Constructing the Artefact. Constructing the artefact is a conceptual process that 

requires both creativity and analytical reasoning. The researcher was able to use the 

desired functionality and general structure of the artefact that emerged through content 

analysis to modify and re-conceptualise the current design thinking process. The aim is 

to design a new artefact as a positive design thinking process. 

The researcher interpreted and discussed the different principles, constructs and 

steps of the positive design thinking process in relation to the positive psychology 

theories, models, and constructs. 

Rigour, Validity, and Reliability 
 

Design science research draws from a vast knowledge base of scientific theories 

and research methods (Hevner, 2007). The knowledge base of design science provides 

the foundation for rigorous research that can produce valid, reliable solutions. 

Rigour 

Due to the subjective interpretation of information in different sources, the 

analysis process had to be rigorous and transparent (Bowen, 2009). Rigour refers to 

accuracy, precision, and exactness; however, it also emphasises the importance of the 

knowledge base that lies at the foundation of the design artefact. The knowledge base 



27 
 

relies as much on researchers' experience and expertise, as it does on existing 

knowledge and theories (Hevner, 2007). 

Referring to the knowledge base is critical in design science research because 

research rigour is predicted based on how skillfully the researcher selects and applies 

existing knowledge and theories when designing and developing the artefact (Hevner, 

2007). The rigour cycle in design science research provides the research study's 

foundational knowledge to ensure that the artefact is innovative and generative. 

According to Baskerville et al. (2015), the knowledge claims, knowledge creation 

process, and knowledge goals are also essential considerations in design science 

research. The designed artefact should: 

• serve the purpose of the knowledge claims of the study, 

• support the development of original knowledge,  

• be concerned with finding a satisfactory rather than optimal design, and  

• be generative and inventive as opposed to scientific, conventional and systematic. 

Validity and Reliability 

Validity is determined by whether or not the result and solution have met the 

requirements of the design science research process. The validity of the design artefact 

is evaluated based on the design science research process, and not as an independent 

design (Drucker-Godard et al., 2001). 

There is an ongoing debate about what constitutes reliability in social and 

pure science because human judgement can vary between observers (Drucker-

Godard et al., 2001). The same observer may also rate the reliability of a designed 

artefact differently within different circumstances. However, according to Drucker-

Godard et al., (2001), a study is deemed reliable if the results are generative and 

inherently repeatable. 



28 
 

Rigour, Validity, and Reliability in the Research  Study 

The validity and reliability of the study can be measured only by assessing how 

rigorously the researcher followed the design science research process. The knowledge 

claims, knowledge creation process, and knowledge goals, can determine whether the 

aim of the study was achieved. The researcher, therefore, attempted that the artefact has a 

strong theoretical knowledge base, that it serves the purpose of the study, that it would 

contribute to knowledge creation, and be generative and inventive. 

Ethical Considerations 
 

Design science research, with its focus on creating new artefacts, introduces new 

ethical concerns unrelated to other research methodologies (Myers & Venable, 2014). 

According to Gregor and Hevner (2013), there are ethical implications for design 

science research, even though there may be no research participants involved. Even 

though there are no overarching, prescribed and agreed ethical principles in design 

science research, it is still critical that researchers consider ethical dilemmas. 

Gregor and Hevner (2013) and Meyers and Venable (2014) proposed six ethical 

principles for design science research with specific reference to information systems 

research and design. These six principles are public interest, informed consent, privacy, 

honesty and accuracy, property, and the quality of the artefact. According to the authors, 

all six principles may not always apply to every design science research project. 

The aim of this study was purely to design and develop an artefact that would not 

be observed, evaluated, or communicated to the public, and the study would not include 

participants. Therefore the following ethical principles were deemed necessary: honesty 

and accuracy, property, quality of the artefact, monitoring of research, data management, 

permission and informed consent, conflict of interest, and potential risk. These are now 

discussed individually.  



29 
 

Honesty and Accuracy 

A design science researcher must not plagiarise ideas and must give recognition 

and acknowledgement to inspiration from other sources. The researcher for this study has 

reported accurately and honestly on the research findings, even in the single instance 

where the research did not support the research question (Gregor & Hevner, 2013; Myers 

& Venable, 2014).  

To ensure honesty and accuracy, Myers and Venable (2014) suggested using a 

devil’s advocate approach in design science research to help envision and identify 

potential side effects of the solution, including reasons the solution would not be fit for 

the intended purpose. This position is vital in design science research because a designer 

has a natural tendency to overstate the importance of a new design. 

Property 

Because the researcher is a Masters student of the North-West University, 

ownership and IP of all research findings and the designed artefact remain the 

property of the university. The researcher has the right to publish the research with 

consent from the co-author and the university (Gregor & Hevner, 2013; Myers & 

Venable, 2014). 

Quality of the Artefact 

Every attempt was made to ensure the quality of the artefact, based on research 

rigour, validity, and reliability. As there is no intention to evaluate or test the artefact 

with participants, no further risk assessment was needed (Gregor & Hevner, 2013; Myers 

& Venable, 2014). 

 

 

 



30 
 

Monitoring of Research 

The research process was monitored by providing continuous feedback to the study 

supervisor as per a set study timeline. 

Data Management 

Data were collected according to the specified search strategy. The data 

collection process was closely monitored by keeping researcher notes and providing 

feedback to the research supervisor. Any deviation from the search strategy was 

declared and addressed with the research supervisor. 

Permission and Informed Consent 

The study was a conceptual analysis of documentary sources within the public 

domain and therefore, did not require any permission or informed consent. 

Conflict of Interest 

The researcher remained objective and was prepared to declare any subjective 

conflict that may have emerged from the study if any such conflict had occurred. 

Potential Risk  

The researcher responsibly ensured truthfulness, respected for the work of other 

researchers, and presented the content and findings of the study in an objective manner. 

A letter of exemption from ethical approval was requested from, and granted by the 

Health Research Ethics Committee (NWU-02077-20-A1) for the study as the study 

presented no ethical risks. The researcher completed the online Training and Resources 

in Research Ethics Evaluation (TRREE) as required by the North-West University 

Transdisciplinary Health Science Department. 

Researcher and Supervisor’s Qualified Experience 
 

The researcher, Janet de Jager, completed her BA Honours degree in Information 

Design at the University of Pretoria in 2008. After practising in the design industry for 



31 
 

two years, Janet started her career in higher education as a design lecturer for first-year 

visual communication students at Open Window Design School. 

In 2011, Janet was appointed as the graphic design programme co-ordinator and 

senior design lecturer at Inscape Education Group. During her time at Inscape, Janet held 

various positions, including the Academic Programme Manager for B.Des students, 

Campus Principal, Senior Business and Brand Development Manager, and Director of 

Performance Improvement. 

Throughout her career in higher education, Janet has worked on curriculum 

design for interdisciplinary design qualifications, including graphic design, interior 

design, fashion design, interactive design, audiovisual design, marketing and 

communication, and design innovation. Janet has been the lead on academic programme 

development, programme quality assurance, accreditation, teaching and learning, staff 

induction and training, student retention and success, stakeholder engagement (including 

working with the SA Innovation Summit and various national and international 

partners), learning and development solutions (including the architecture of an online 

learner management system and learning platform), and strategic business planning, 

reporting and analysis. 

In 2019, Janet started her Masters in Positive Psychology intending to bridge the 

gap and find the synergy between design and well-being. Janet advocates a strong belief 

that positive psychology can enhance the creative output of designers to develop 

products, systems, experiences, and human-centric solutions that promote the well-being 

of individuals, organisations, and society. 

Towards the end of 2019, Janet joined the Foreign Commonwealth and 

Development Office as the Africa Regional Learning and Knowledge Co-ordinator 

where she is currently responsible for assessing learning needs and providing access to 



32 
 

Africa-specific learning and development opportunities across the African region and 

abroad. Janet is also currently the Well-Being Network design lead for the British High 

Commission in Pretoria. 

Janet has not only taught in the field of design thinking but has also practised the 

methodology for more than a decade across all avenues of her professional career, and 

she continues to do so in her daily work. 

Dr Christi Niesing, the research supervisor, is at heart a researcher, teacher, and 

entrepreneur with a passion for all types of creativity. Christi completed her high school 

career in 1994 in Heilbron. In 1995, she began her studies in BCom Hotel and Tourism 

Management at the University of Pretoria; followed by a Postgraduate Certificate in 

Higher Education at the NWU. Her career path has been filled with teaching and 

entrepreneurial activities. She completed her MBA degree at NWU in 2012. 

The research component of Christi’s degree focused on evaluating the 

sustainability indicators in the ‘Holding Hands’ projects. She completed her PhD in 

Business Administration at the NWU in 2016. The study was a qualitative case study 

with constructivist grounded theory as a methodology. 

All of Christi’s passions came together when she became part of AUTHeR at the 

NWU in October 2008. She started as the project manager for the ‘Holding Hands’ 

income-generating community projects were she gained experience as a community 

development practitioner through the implementation of various development 

interventions. She has relevant experience in conducting in-depth individual interviews 

and focus group interviews. Her main research focus is on sustainable community 

development. 

Christi has lectured a second-year module for Health Sciences students 

called Know Your World of health, as well as postgraduate modules for the MHSc 



33 
 

degree in Transdisciplinary Health research, all while providing study guidance to 

masters and doctoral students. She has embedded herself in qualitative methodology 

and attended international training workshops on qualitative methodology for 

applied research. Her passions include the creative development of human capital as 

she believes that every person posses the ability to become so much more than they 

believe. 

Contributions of the Study 
 

According to Baskerville et al. (2018), design science research can contribute to 

the world’s knowledge base through the design of novel artefacts and generalisable 

design theories. As the aim of the study was to rethink design thinking from a positive 

psychology perspective, the study has potential practical implications through the use of 

the positive design thinking process in organisations. The study also has research 

implications through the dissemination of the research in academic publications by 

hopefully encouraging further research on the topic. 

The study set out to make practical and research contributions to address the gap 

which exists on how positive psychology can enrich the problem solving and innovation 

methodologies in organisations so that individual well-being and organisational 

performance could be promoted. The study began by proposing that a positive design 

thinking process would add value to the current design thinking process used in 

organisations. By re-conceptualising the design thinking process through a positive lens, 

it is believed that organisations can increase their capacity to design more satisfying and 

morally stronger solutions and innovations by drawing from the best of human 

capabilities. 

Design science research contributes to a knowledge base in two dominant ways, 

namely, by designing artefacts and by designing theories (Baskerville et al., 2018). This 



34 
 

study aimed to contribute to the knowledge base with both the design of an artefact and 

design theorising. These perspectives are complementary and demonstrate that the 

artefact construction and design theorising are necessary and interrelated in design 

science research (Baskerville et al., 2018). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



35 
 

Structure of the Research Study 

Table 3 
 

Structure of the Study 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dissemination of Information 
 

The research study was first intended to be published in the Journal of 

Humanistic Psychology and the Design for Health journal. The Journal of Humanistic 

Psychology was founded by Abraham Maslow and Anthony Sutich in 1961.  

The Journal of Humanistic Psychology is open to research contributions, 

controversies, and diverse statements relating to humanistic psychology. The Journal of 

Humanistic Psychology publications include topics on personal growth, interpersonal 

encounters, social problems, philosophical issues, human potential, self-actualisation, the 

search for meaning, and social change. 

The Design for Health journal (established in 2011) is an international journal that 

focusses on aspects of design in the context of health and well-being. The journal readership 

includes design and health scholars, professionals, practitioners, educators, and managers. 

Title of the study 

Acknowledgements 

Research outline 

Preface 

List of contents 

List of tables 

List of figures 

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Research Problem and Methodology 

Chapter 2: Manuscript 

Chapter 3: Evaluation, Limitations, and Recommendations 

Appendices 

 



36 
 

The journal publishes articles on design and creative practices, which opens new avenues 

for people to understand problems, visualise new possibilities, and deal with future 

challenges and opportunities. 

However, during the research process, the researcher decided that the article would 

be most suited for the She Ji Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. The She Ji 

Journal is a peer-reviewed, trans-disciplinary journal with a focus on economic, innovation, 

design process, and design thinking. The journal publishes a variety of trans-disciplinary 

articles with a specific interest in how design and design thinking informs wider social, 

managerial, and intellectual discourse. 

Budget 
 

Table 4 
 

Budget for study (self-funded) 
 

Expense Amount (estimated) Funding 

Printing costs of documents 

(information sampling and content 

analysis) 

R2,000.00 Self-funded 

Language editing R6,000.00 Self-funded 

Total expenses (estimated) R8,000.00 Self-funded 

 
Timeline 

 
The estimated timeline for the study (see Table 5) took into consideration the 

continuous consultation needed with the research supervisor, as well as the duration to 

incorporate feedback. 

 

 

 



37 
 

Table 5 
 

Estimate timeline for research study 
 

Activity 
 
Prepare for submission to AUTHeR Scientific Committee 

Submit Proposal to AUTHeR Scientific Committee 

Incorporate AUTHeR Scientific panel feedback 

Submit final proposal (depending on ASC feedback) 

Start Date End Date 
 
 
 

4/8/2020 
 
 

09/09/2020 

Design and development phase 

Information sampling 

Content analysis 

14/9/2020 14/10/2020 

Constructing the artefact 15/10/2020 15/11/2020 

Interpretation and discussion of the artefact 

Design theorising 

16/11/2020 30/11/2020 

Formating of mini-dissertation 

Submit for Language editing 

01/12/2020 

06/12/2020 

04/12/2020 

13/12/2020 

Final changes and review 14/12/2020 17/122020 

Final submission 18/12/2020  

 
  



38 
 

References 
 
Ashton-James, C. E., & Chartrand, T. L. (2009). Social cues for creativity: The impact of 

behavioral mimicry on convergent and divergent thinking. Journal of Experimental Social 

Psychology, 45(4), 1036–1040. https://doi-org.nwulib.nwu.ac.za/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.030 

Avital, M., Boland, R. J., & Lyytinen, K. (2009). Introduction to designing information and 

organisations with a positive lens. Information and Organization, 19(3), 153–161. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2009.04.002 

Baehrr, J. (2011). The structure of open-mindedness. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 41(2), 191–

213. https://doi.org/10.1353/cjp.2011.0010 

Baskerville, R. (2018). The emergence of design science research from decision theory. 

Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 30(2), 55–61. 

http://iris.cs.aau.dk/tl_files/volumes/volume30/30-2-Baskerville(web).pdf 

Baskerville, R., Baiyere, A., Gregor, S., Hevner, A., & Rossi, M. (2018). Design science research 

contributions: Finding a balance between artifact and theory. Journal of the Association for 

Information Systems, 19(5), 358–376. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00495 

Baskerville, R., Kaul, M., & Storey, V. C. (2015). Genres of inquiry in design-science research: 

Justification and evaluation of knowledge production. Management Information Systems 

Quarterly, 39(3), 541–564. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.3.02 

Bandura, A. (2010). Self-efficacy. The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. American Cancer 

Society. (pp. 1–3). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi-

org.nwulib.nwu.ac.za/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0836 

Bandura, A., & Adams, N. E. (1977). Analysis of self-efficacy theory of behavioral change. 

Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 287–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01663995 

 

 



39 
 

Bider, I., Johannesson, P., & Perjons, E. (2013). Design science research as movement between 

individual and generic situation-problem–solution spaces. In R. Baskerville, M. De Marco & 

P. Spagnoletti (Eds.), Designing organizational systems: An interdisciplinary iscourse. 

lecture notes in information systems and rganisation, (Vol. 1, pp. 35–61). Springer-Verlag. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33371-2_3 

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative 

Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 

Brenner, W., Uebernickel, F., & Abrell, T. (2016). Design thinking as mindset, process, and 

toolbox. In W. Brenner & F. Uebernickel (Eds.), Design thinking for innovation: research 

and practice (pp. 3–21). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3_1 

Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 

28(3), 381–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x 

Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Development Outreach, 

12(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1596/1020-797X_12_1_29 

Buchanan, R. (2019). Systems thinking and design thinking: The search for principles in the world 

we are making. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(2), 85–104.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.04.001 

Carlgren, L., Elmquist, M., & Rauth, I. (2016). The challenges of using design thinking in 

industry—Experiences from five large firms. Creativity & Innovation Management, 25(3), 

344–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12176 

Charyton, C., Hutchison, S., Snow, L., Rahman, M. A., & Elliott, J. O. (2009). Creativity as an 

attribute of positive psychology: The impact of positive and negative affect on the creative 

personality. Journal of Creativity in Mental Health, 4(1), 57–66. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15401380802708791 



40 
 

Chiesi, F., Lau, C., & Saklofske, D. H. (2020). A revised short version of the compassionate love 

scale for humanity (CLS-H-SF): Evidence from item response theory analyses and validity 

testing. BMC Psychology, 8(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-0386-9 

Compton, W. C., & Hoffman, E. (2019). Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness and 

Flourishing (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.  

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Abuhamdeh, S., & Nakamura, J. (2014). Flow. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), 

Flow and the foundations of positive psychology: The collected works of Mihaly 

Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 227-238). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_15 

Davenport, L. J., Allisey, A. F., Page, K. M., LaMontagne, A. D., & Reavley, N. J. (2016). How can 

organisations help employees thrive? The development of guidelines for promoting positive 

mental health at work. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 9(4), 411–

427. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-01-2016-0001 

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the 

self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. 

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 

Design Council. (2015, February 17). What is the framework for innovation? Design council’s 

evolved double diamond design . Design Council. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-

opinion/ what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond 

Desmet, P. (2018). Positive design: Delft students design for our well-being. Delft University of 

Technology. https://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:tudelft.nl:uuid%3A8441ac32-

1489-40e3-9bd6-0da11cda8fbc 

Donaldson, S. I., Dollwet, M., & Rao, M. A. (2015). Happiness, excellence, and optimal human 

functioning revisited: Examining the peer-reviewed literature linked to positive psychology. 

The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 185–195. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2014.943801 



41 
 

Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521– 532. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006 

Drucker-Godard, C., Ehlinger, S., & Grenier, C. (2001). Validity and reliability. In R.-A. Thiétart 

(Ed.), Doing Management Research, 1, 196–220. 

https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781849208970.n10 

Fehr, B., & Sprecher, S. (2008). Compassionate love: Conceptual, measurement, and relational 

issues. In B. Fehr, S. Sprecher & L. G. Underwood (Eds.), The science of compassionate 

love: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 27–52). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444303070.ch2 

Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for 

maximum impact. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355. 

https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.2.01 

Grots, A., & Creuznacher, I. (2016). Design thinking: Process or culture? In W. Brenner & F. 

Uebernickel (Eds.), Design thinking for Innovation: Research and Practice (pp. 183–191). 

Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26100-3_13 

Hevner, A. (2007). A three cycle view of design science research. Scandinavian Journal of 

Information Systems, 19(2), 87–92. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254804390_A_Three_Cycle_View_of_Design_Sci

ence_Research 

Hevner, A., Vom Brocke, J., & Maedche, A. (2019). Roles of digital innovation in design science 

research. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61, 3–8. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0571-z 

Hodges, S. D., Clark, B. A. M., & Myers, M. W. (2011). Better living through perspective taking. 

In R. Biswas-Diener (Ed.), Positive psychology as social change (pp. 193–218). Springer. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9938-9_12 



42 
 

Huang, L., & Luthans, F. (2015). Toward better understanding of the learning goal orientation- 

creativity relationship: The role of positive psychological capital. Applied Psychology, 64(2), 

444–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12028 

Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design thinking: Past, present and 

possible futures. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 121–146. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023 

Kim, H. H., Choi, J. N., & Butt, A. N. (2019). Reflected self-efficacy and creativity: The power of 

being recognized by others toward individual creative performance. Social Behavior & 

Personality: An International Journal, 47(8), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023 

Koestner, R., & Hope, N. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to goals. In M. Gagné (Ed.), 

The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory 

(pp. 400-413). Oxford University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199794911.013.025 

Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2015). Empathy via design thinking: Creation of sense and knowledge. 

In H. Plattner, C. Meinel & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking research: Building innovators. 

(pp. 15–28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06823-7_2 

Kotler, S. (2015, February 27). The neurochemistry of flow states, with Steven Kotler [Video file]. 

Big Think. https://bigthink.com/videos/the-neurochemistry-of-flow-states-with-steven-kotler 

Lambert, N. M., Graham, S. M., Fincham, F. D., & Stillman, T. F. (2009). A changed perspective: 

How gratitude can affect sense of coherence through positive reframing. The Journal of 

Positive psychology, 4(6), 461–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903157182 

Liedtka, J. (2014). Innovative ways companies are using design thinking. Strategy & Leadership, 

42(2), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1108/SL-01-2014-0004 



43 
 

Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through 

Cognitive Bias Reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32 (6): 925–38. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163 

Lindberg, T., Meinel, C., & Wagner, R. (2011). Design thinking: A fruitful concept for IT 

development? In C. Meinel, L. Leifer, & H. Plattner (Eds.), Design thinking: Understand – 

Improve – Apply (pp. 3–18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0_1 

Lissack, M. (2019, Autumn). Understanding is a design problem: Cognizing from a designerly 

thinking perspective. Part 1. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 

5(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.07.002 

Lopez, S. J., Pedrotti, J. T., & Snyder, C. R. (2018). Positive psychology: The Scientific and 

practical explorations of human strengths (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. 

Lunenburg, F. C. (2011). Self-efficacy in the workplace: Implications for motivation and 

performance. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration, 14(1), 1–

6. 

http://nationalforum.com/Electronic%20Journal%20Volumes/Lunenburg,%20Fred%20C.%2

0Self-Efficacy%20in%20the%20Workplace%20IJMBA%20V14%20N1%202011.pdf 

Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., & Da Camara, N. (2009). Putting positive psychology to work in 

organisations. Journal of General Management, 34(3), 31–36. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/030630700903400302 

Myers, M. D., & Venable, J. R. (2014). A set of ethical principles for design science research in 

information systems. Information & Management, 51(6), 801–809. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.01.002 

Oriol, X., Amutio, A., Mendoza, M., Da Costa, S., & Miranda, R. (2016). Emotional creativity as 

predictor of intrinsic motivation and academic engagement in university students: The 



44 
 

mediating role of positive emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–9. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01243 

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Gengler, C. E., Rossi, M., Hui, W., Virtanen, V., & Bragge, J. (2006). 

The design science research process: A model for producing and presenting information 

systems research. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design Science 

Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006), (pp. 83-106). Claremont. 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.02763.pdf 

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., & Niehaves, B. (2018). Design science research genres: Introduction to 

the special issue on exemplars and criteria for applicable design science research. European 

Journal of Information Systems, 27(2), 129–139. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2018.1458066 

Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010, November 29). Design thinking: An 

educational model towards creative confidence [Paper presentation]. Design science 66-2: 

Proceedings of the 1st international conference on design creativity (ICDC 2010). The 

Design Society. 

https://www.designsociety.org/publication/30267/Design+Thinking%3A+An+Educational+

Model+towards+Creative+Confidence 

Rego, A., Sousa, F., Marques, C., & Cunha, M. P. (2012). Optimism predicting employees’ 

creativity: The mediating role of positive affect and the positivity ratio. European Journal of 

Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(2), 244–270. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2010.550679 

Reimann, M., & Schilke, O. (2011). Product differentiation by aesthetic and creative design: A 

psychological and neural framework of design thinking. In C. Meinel, L. Leifer & H. 

Plattner (Eds.), Design thinking:Understand – Improve – Apply. (pp. 45–57). Springer. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13757-0_3 



45 
 

 
Royalty, A., Oishi, L., & Roth, B. (2012). “I use it every day”: Pathways to adaptive innovation 

after graduate study in design thinking. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design 

thinking Research: Measuring Performance in Context (pp. 95–105). Springer Science & 

Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31991-4_6 

Ruitenberg, H. P., & Desmet, P. M. A. (2012, September 11–14). Design thinking in positive 

psychology: The development of a product-service combination that stimulates happiness-

enhancing activities [Paper presentation]. Out of Control: Proceedings of the 8th 

International Conference on Design and Emotion, London, UK. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289564740_Design_thinking_in_positive_psychol

ogy_The_development_of_a_product-service_combination_that_stimulates_happiness-

enhancing_activities 

Safin, S., Dorta, T., Pierini, D., Kinayoglu, G., & Lesage, A. (2016). Design flow 2.0, assessing 

experience during ideation with increased granularity: A proposed method. Design Studies, 

47, 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.08.002 

Silvia, P. J., Fayn, K., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2015). Openness to experience and awe in 

response to nature and music: Personality and profound aesthetic experiences. Psychology of 

Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 376–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/aca0000028 

Singer, T., & Klimecki, O. M. (2014). Empathy and compassion. Current Biology, 24(18), 875–

878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.054 

Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., & Sigmon, D. R. (2002). Hope theory: A member of the positive 

psychology family. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology 

(p. 257–276). Oxford University Press. 



46 
 

Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of 

Social and Personal Relationships, 22(5), 629–651. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505056439 

Sun, Z., & Liu, J. (2008, October 01). A Design thinking process model for capturing and 

formalizing design intents [Paper presentation]. ISCID '08: Proceedings of the 2008 

International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design, 1, 330–333. 

https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCID.2008.192 

Tamannaeifar, M. R., & Motaghedifard, M. (2014). Subjective well-being and its sub-scales among 

students: The study of the role of creativity and self-efficacy. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 

12, 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.12.003 

To, M. L., Fisher, C. D., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Rowe, P. A. (2012). Within-person relationships 

between mood and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 599–612. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026097 

Van der Merwe, A., Gerber, A., & Smuts, H. (2020). Guidelines for conducting design science 

research in information systems. In B. Tait, J. Kroeze & S. Gruner (Eds.), ICT 

Education,163–178. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35629-3_11 

Von Thienen, J., Clancey, W., Corazza, G., & Meinel, C. (2017). Theoretical foundations of design 

thinking. Part I: John E. Arnold’s creative thinking theories. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, L. 

Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking Research. Understanding Innovation. Springer.  

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60967-6_2 

Wilson, C., Ottati, V., & Price, E. (2017). Open-minded cognition: The attitude justification effect. 

The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(1), 47–58. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1167941 



47 
 

Chapter 2: Manuscript 
 

SHE JI: THE JOURNAL OF 
DESIGN, ECONOMICS, AND 
INNOVATION 
AUTHOR INFORMATION PACK 
. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

1. INTRODUCTION 
 

. 

She Ji is a peer-reviewed, trans-disciplinary design journal. We focus on economics and 
innovation, design process, and design thinking in today's complex socio-technical 
environment. We are a diamond open access journal with no fees. 

 
Our mission is to further design innovation in industry, business, non-profit services, 
and government through economic and social value creation. Innovation requires 
integrating ideas, economics, and technology to create new knowledge at the 
intersection of different fields. She Ji provides a unique forum for this inquiry. 

 
Articles in She Ji address the creation, development, distribution, and use of goods and services 
by societies, organisations, and individuals; the creation and control of socio-technical systems; 
the strategic and managerial issues these entail; the way that organisations use design; and how 
design thinking informs wider social, managerial, and intellectual discourses. We also publish 
articles in research methods and methodology, philosophy, and philosophy of science that 
support our core journal area. 

 
She Ji welcomes articles on a wide range of topics. 
These include: Design for complex socio-technical systems, scientific, technical, and 
philosophical problems in fourth-order design, design driven innovation for social and 
economic change, design practices in management, consulting, and public service, 
design for alternative economies and industrial transformation, design for sustainability, 
design for social innovation, organisational change, and education design, computation, 
and algorithms, design and cybernetics, cultural and societal aspects of design and 
innovation, philosophy of design, philosophy of science for design research, design 
theory, methods, and methodology, and research methods and research skills for the 
design field. 

 
She Ji encourages three new dimensions in the literature of design and innovation: (1) 
rigorous research in design using the methods of the natural sciences, social sciences, 
and economics; (2) economic and management inquiry; (3) methodological 
contributions that deploy innovative research methods and processes. 

 
She Ji publishes seven types of articles: 

• Original research articles. She Ji welcomes conceptual, theoretical, and empirical 
articles. All research articles move through double-blind peer review. Following peer 
review, She Ji works with authors on a final round of copy editing to ensure highly 
readable articles that will reach and influence a wide audience of scholars, researchers, 



48 
 

and professional designers, teachers, and students, as well as leaders in business, 
industry, and government. 

• Review articles. She Ji encourages literature review and research review. Review 
articles use double-blind peer review followed by copy editing. 

• Case studies. She Ji welcomes original research articles involving rigorous case 
studies and reflection. Research case studies use double-blind peer review 
followed by copy editing. 

• Book reviews. Books reviews focus on analysis and discussion of individual books 
as well as extended book reviews covering several books. Book reviews use 
double-blind peer review followed by copy editing. She Ji also publishes short 
book notes. Short book notes are not subject to peer review. 

• Viewpoint articles. Viewpoint articles involve informed opinion and comments by 
distinguished experts. While viewpoint articles present expert opinion, these articles 
use double-blind peer review to check facts and to ensure rigorous argumentation 
followed by copy editing. 

• Discussion articles. Discussion articles include interviews, opinion leader 
commentary, and dialogues. Discussion articles are not subject to peer review. 

• Letters. Letters to the journal comment on published articles. Letters are not 
subject to peer review. 

 
2. BEFORE YOU BEGIN 
 
Ethics in publishing 
Please see our information pages on Ethics in publishing and Ethical guidelines 
for journal publication. 

 
Declaration of interest 
All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or 
organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of 
potential competing interests include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, 
honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other 
funding. Authors must disclose any interests in two places: 

 
1. A summary declaration of interest statement in the title page file (if double-

blind) or the manuscript file (if single-blind). If there are no interests to declare 
then please state this: ‘Declarations of interest: none'. This summary statement 
will be ultimately published if the article is accepted. 

2. Detailed disclosures as part of a separate Declaration of Interest form, which forms 
part of the journal's official records. It is important for potential interests to be 
declared in both places and that the information matches.  
 

Submission declaration and verification 
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published 
previously (except in the form of an abstract, a published lecture or academic thesis, see 
'Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication' for more information), that it is not under 
consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors 
and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, 
and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or 



49 
 

in any other lang