設計思考是針對複雜問題的創意解決歷程。而其中經常涉及到到跨學科合作的共同設計來提升團隊創造力。共同設計團隊有設計師、使用者和研究者三個基本的角色。最近對於設計思考的討論，強調具有各自思考本位的參與者如何能夠有更充分的互動來增加設計思考的創意。本研究的目的就是在於探討設計思考中不同角色的共同設計（co-design）是否能促進設計思考過程中團體創意的表現。

由於共同設計在不同學科之間可能存在衝突，這也可能阻礙團隊表現。因此，本研究探索共同設計的團體歷程，並檢查哪些因素可以促進團體創意表現。基於文獻分析，本研究提出，在矛盾框架下，團體成員感知到衝突，建設性批評、平等發言，以及對團體效能的積極態度將引導團體致力於整合複雜性。這種分析矛盾以尋找新整合的參與將促進共同設計中的團體創造力。關於研究設計，本研究調查實際團隊的創意過程，並以圖書館面臨的衝突議題作為矛盾框架進行共同設計工作坊，使用設計思考任務來檢視跨學科合作中的團隊創造力。對於進行設計思考的團隊，採用了高矛盾框架的任務操縱，並用低矛盾框架作為對照組來操縱共同設計的程度。有效的共同設計小組擁有來自不同專業背景的參與者，在設計思考的所有階段提供平等表達意見的機會。關於設計思考的研究指出，成員必須使用建設性批評作為互動的規範，以反饋改進他人的意見。本研究測量了衝突感通過整合複雜性，觀察自我效能、建設性爭議和平等意見貢獻在複雜問題的創意解決過程中的角色。過去的研究指出，促進團隊合作和創意表現需要在團隊成員中培養一種集體效能的態度。本研究使用平等意見貢獻、建設性爭議和集體效能來描述共同設計小組如何促進設計思考中的創意過程。並測量了團隊的創意表現和啟發，以及探索團隊內的衝突感。

本研究的發現表明，矛盾框架可以增強團隊的衝突感。儘管矛盾心態並不影響這一關係，但它對共同設計團隊的創造力和表現至關重要。衝突感通過整合複雜性影響團隊表現，並強調需要平衡衝突管理。此外，儘管集體效能沒有發揮顯著的調節作用，建設性爭議在階段之間確實變化，並強調其在增強團隊整合和創造力方面的影響。這些發現的涵義在理論進步和實踐建議中進行了討論，為最大化共同設計團隊的潛力以促進創意共同設計過程提供了見解。

Design thinking is a creative process for solving complex problems, which always involves codesign with interdisciplinary collaboration for advancing team creativity. Codesign team have three fundamental roles: the designer, the user, and the researcher. Recent discussions on design thinking emphasize how participants can engage more fully to enhance creativity in the process. This study aims to explore whether co-design involving different roles in design thinking can enhance group creativity within the process.
Since codesigns conflict in different disciplines, it may also hinder team performance. Therefore, this study explores the group process of codesign and examine what factors can promote group creative performance. Based on the analysis of the literature, this study proposes that under the paradox framing, group members sense the conflict, and constructive criticism, equal voicing, and positive attitudes toward group efficacy will guide the group to commit to the integration complexity. This engagement of analyzing contradictions to find new integration will promote group creativity in co-design. Regarding research design, this study explores the creative process of real teams by employing a co-design workshop with a paradoxical frame based on conflicting issues faced by libraries. The goal is to examine team creativity within interdisciplinary collaboration through design thinking tasks. For teams undergoing design thinking, manipulation of tasks with high paradoxical frames was employed, with a low paradoxical frame used for the control group to manipulate the degree of co-design. The effective co-design group hade participants from different professional backgrounds, providing equal opportunities to express opinions at all stages of design thinking. Research on design thinking notes that members must use constructive criticism as a norm for interaction that feeds back to improve others' opinions. This study measures how sense of conflict, through integrative complexity, observes the role of self-efficacy, constructive controversy, and equal idea contribution in the creative problem-solving process for complex issues. Past research points out that promoting team collaboration and creative performance requires fostering an attitude among team members which is collective efficacy. This study uses equal idea contribution, constructive controversy, and collective efficacy to describe how co-design groups contribute to the creative process in design thinking. It also measures the team's creative performance and inspiration along with exploring sense of conflict within teams.
The findings of this study suggests that a paradoxical framework can enhance team's sense of conflict. Although a paradoxical mindset does not affect the relationship, it is crucial for the creativity and performance of co-design teams. The sense of conflict, through integrative complexity, impacts team performance and underscores the need for balanced conflict management. Furthermore, while collective efficacy does not play a significant moderating role, constructive controversy does vary between stages and emphasizes its influence in enhancing team integration and creativity. Implications of these findings are discussed in theory advancement and practice suggestions, which provide insight into maximizing the potential of co-design teams to promote a creative co-design process.

Aktas, B., & Groth, C. (2021). Using creative practice in interdisciplinary education. Paper presented at the International Conference for Design Education Researchers.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 16, 74-94.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American psychologist, 37(2), 122.
Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. Advances in psychological science, 1, 51-71.
Barile, S., Grimaldi, M., Loia, F., & Sirianni, C. (2020). Technology, Value Co-Creation and Innovation in Service Ecosystems: Toward Sustainable Co-Innovation. Sustainability, 12, 2759. doi:10.3390/su12072759
Bissola, R., & Imperatori, B. (2011). Organizing individual and collective creativity: Flying in the face of creativity clichés. Creativity and Innovation management, 20(2), 77-89.
Chiu, C.-Y., Kwan, L. Y.-Y., & Liou, S. (2014). Professional and disciplinary cultures.
Chiu, C. Y., Kwan, L. Y. Y., & Liou, S. (2013). Culturally motivated challenges to innovations in integrative research: Theory and solutions. Social Issues and Policy Review, 7(1), 149-172.
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi‐dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of management studies, 47(6), 1154-1191.
De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741.
DeFilippis, E., Impink, S. M., Singell, M., Polzer, J. T., & Sadun, R. (2020). Collaborating during coronavirus: The impact of COVID-19 on the nature of work. Retrieved from
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532.
Drain, A., Shekar, A., & Grigg, N. (2018). Insights, Solutions and Empowerment: a framework for evaluating participatory design. CoDesign, 1-21.
Einfeld, C., & Blomkamp, E. (2022). Nudge and co-design: complementary or contradictory approaches to policy innovation? Policy Studies, 43(5), 901-919. doi:10.1080/01442872.2021.1879036
Farh, J.-L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task Conflict and Team Creativity: A Question of How Much and When. The Journal of applied psychology, 95, 1173-1180. doi:10.1037/a0020015
Fischer, G. (2002). Beyond" couch potatoes": From consumers to designers and active contributors. First Monday.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
Gibbons, S. (Producer). (2018). Empathy Mapping: The First Step in Design Thinking.
Green, S., Southee, D., & Boult, J. (2014). Towards a design process ontology. The Design Journal, 17(4), 515-537.
Hair, J., Andreson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. 5th (ed) Prentice-Hall Inc. Unites States of America.
Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions: Rockport Publishers.
Hill, L. A., Brandeau, G., Truelove, E., & Lineback, K. (2014). Collective genius: The art and practice of leading innovation: Harvard Business Review Press.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 53-75): Springer.
Hyysalo, S., Jensen, T. E., & Oudshoorn, N. (2016). The new production of users: Changing innovation collectives and involvement strategies.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of management journal, 44(2), 238-251.
Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological bulletin, 77(5), 361.
Kim, M., & Shin, Y. (2015a). Collective efficacy as a mediator between cooperative group norms and group positive affect and team creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32, 693-716.
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 15(2), 155-163.
Köppen, E., & Meinel, C. (2014). Empathy via design thinking: creation of sense and knowledge. In Design thinking research: Building innovators (pp. 15-28): Springer.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes.
Lee, E. (2016). Service Design Challenge: Transitioning from Concept to Implementation.
Lee, Y. (2008). Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process. CoDesign, 4(1), 31-50. doi:10.1080/15710880701875613
Leung, A. K.-y., Liou, S., Miron-Spektor, E., Koh, B., Chan, D., Eisenberg, R., & Schneider, I. (2018). Middle ground approach to paradox: Within-and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Journal of personality and social psychology, 114(3), 443.
Leung, A. K. Y., Liou, S., Tsai, M. H., & Koh, B. (2020). Mood—Creativity Relationship in Groups: The Role of Equality in Idea Contribution in Temporal Mood Effects. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(1), 165-183.
Lewrick, M., Link, P., & Leifer, L. (2018). The design thinking playbook: Mindful digital transformation of teams, products, services, businesses and ecosystems: John Wiley & Sons.
Liou, S. (2021). 《跨領域團體創意的矛盾效應》. Retrieved from
McKenzie, M. W. A. W. D. (2016). Co-design: A Powerful Force for Creativity and Collaboration. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@thestratosgroup/co-design-a-powerful-force-for-creativity-and-collaboration-bed1e0f13d46
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229-240.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The leadership quarterly, 13(6), 705-750.
O'Neill, T. A., Hancock, S., McLarnon, M. J. W., & Holland, T. (2020). When the SUIT Fits: Constructive Controversy Training in Face‐to‐Face and Virtual Teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 13(1), 44-59. doi:10.1111/ncmr.12154
Ou, Z., Chen, T., Li, F., & Tang, P. (2018). Constructive controversy and creative process engagement: The roles of positive conflict value, cognitive flexibility, and psychological safety. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(2), 101-113.
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M., & Kohn, N. W. (2012). Chapter 14 - Collaborative Creativity—Group Creativity and Team Innovation. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 327-357). San Diego: Academic Press.
Pirinen, A. (2016). The barriers and enablers of co-design for services. 10, 27-42.
Plattner, H. (2013). An introduction to design thinking. Iinstitute of Design at Stanford, 1-15.
Priester, J., & Petty, R. (1996). The Gradual Threshold Model of Ambivalence: Relating the Positive and Negative Bases of Attitudes to Subjective Ambivalence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 71, 431-449. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.431
Puck, J., Neyer, A.-K., & Dennerlein, T. (2011). Diversity and Conflict in Teams: A Contingency Perspective. http://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/Publikationen/55828, 4. doi:10.1504/EJIM.2010.033610
Riggs, M., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994). Development and Validation of Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectancy Scales for Job-Related Applications. Educational and Psychological Measurement - EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS, 54, 793-802. doi:10.1177/0013164494054003026
Sander, E. (2013). Perspectives on Participation in Design. In (pp. 65-78).
Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design. CoDesign, 4, 5-18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068
Sanders, E. B.-N., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010). A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th biennial participatory design conference.
Sandman, H., Meguid, T., & Levänen, J. (2020). Unboxing empathy: reflecting on architectural design for maternal health. CoDesign, 1-19.
Schell, M., & O'Brien, J. (2015). Communicating the UX vision: 13 anti-patterns that block good ideas: Morgan Kaufmann.
Schmiedgen, J., Spille, L., Köppen, E., Rhinow, H., & Meinel, C. (2016). Measuring the impact of design thinking. Design thinking research: Making design thinking foundational, 157-170.
Schreier, M., Oberhauser, S., & Prügl, R. (2007). Lead users and the adoption and diffusion of new products: Insights from two extreme sports communities. Marketing Letters, 18(1-2), 15-30.
Seitchik, M. (2019). The Goldilocks approach to team conflict: How leaders can maximize innovation and revenue growth. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 22(1), 37.
Selloni, D., & Selloni, D. (2017). Codesign for the public interest. CoDesign for Public-Interest Services, 177-189.
Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H.-A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 391.
Smith, R. C., Bossen, C., & Kanstrup, A. M. (2017). Participatory design in an era of participation. CoDesign, 13(2), 65-69. doi:10.1080/15710882.2017.1310466
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522-536.
Somech, A., Desivilya, H. S., & Lidogoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(3), 359-378. doi:10.1002/job.537
SonicRim, L. S. (2001). Collective creativity. Design, 6(3), 1-6.
Stahl, G., Maznevski, M., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 690-709. doi:10.1057/jibs.2009.85
Steen, M., Manschot, M., & Koning, N. D. (2011). Benefits of Co-design in Service Design Projects.
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Ramirez, C. (1977). War, peace, and integrative complexity: UN speeches on the Middle East problem, 1947–1976. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21(3), 427-442.
Taffe, S. (2015). The hybrid designer/end-user: Revealing paradoxes in co-design. Design Studies, 40, 39-59. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.06.003
Tetlock, P., Peterson, R., & Berry, J. (1993). Flattering and Unflattering Personality Portraits of Integratively Simple and Complex Managers. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64, 500-511. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.3.500
Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(1), 74.
Tjosvold, D., Wedley, W. C., & Field, R. H. G. (1986). Constructive controversy, the Vroom-Yetton model, and managerial decision-making. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7(2), 125-138. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030070205
Tjosvold, D., Wong, A. S., & Feng Chen, N. Y. (2014). Constructively managing conflicts in organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 545-568.
Trischler, J., Pervan, S., Kelly, S., & Scott, D. (2018a). The Value of Codesign: The Effect of Customer Involvement in Service Design Teams. Journal of Service Research, 21, 75-100. doi:10.1177/1094670517714060
Visser, F. S., Stappers, P. J., van der Lugt, R., & Sanders, E. B. N. (2005). Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign, 1(2), 119-149. doi:10.1080/15710880500135987
von Tempski, F. (2019). Collective Creativity as a driver for innovation: A qualitative multiple case study analysis of the phenomena of Collective Creativity within innovation-driven environments. In.
Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 19(1), 231-240.