The relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and creativity in architectural design studio

    Naiera Ebrahim Mahmoud   Affiliation
    ; Shaimaa Mohamed Kamel   Affiliation
    ; Tamer Samir Hamza   Affiliation


Creativity is a cognitive ability that enables individuals to come up with both original and functional ideas and products. As architectural design requires producing aesthetic and practically useful solutions, it is a primary concern to enhance creativity in design disciplines. Many theorists argued that design is a non-linear process and many components of design problems are not clear at the beginning. At the start of the process, designers are always working at the periphery of a solution space where there is less coherence and more ambiguity. Thus, they must deal with a lot of ambiguity in every design situation. These states of uncertainty and confusion can be annoying for architecture students. On the other hand, tolerance of ambiguity is a personality trait that has been linked to creative thinking. Therefore, this paper attempts to investigate the correlation between tolerance of ambiguity of architectural students and their creativity via a qualitative study. The researchers implemented a mixed-method approach and recruited 18 architecture students. The results from this study revealed that there is a significant correlation between students’ creative thinking abilities and their tolerance for ambiguity. Our results also indicated that there is no statistically significant correlation between students’ tolerance of ambiguity and their design creativity.

Article in English.

Santykis tarp tolerancijos dviprasmiškumui ir kūrybiškumo architektūrinio projektavimo studijoje


Kūrybiškumas kaip kognityvinis gebėjimas sudaro sąlygas asmenims sukurti originalių ir funkcionalių idėjų bei produktų. Kadangi architektūrinis projektavimas reikalauja priimti estetinius ir praktine prasme naudingus sprendimus, todėl pirmiausia reikia rūpintis kūrybiškumo stiprinimu su projektavimu susijusiose disciplinose. Dauguma teoretikų įrodinėja, kad projektavimas yra nelinijinis procesas, o didžioji dalis projektavimo problemų sudedamųjų dalių nuo pat pradžių sudaro neaiškumų. Prasidedant procesui, projektuotojai bet kuriuo atveju darbuojasi sprendimo erdvės paribyje, kuriame yra mažai darnumo, tačiau kur kas daugiau – dviprasmiškumo. Tad jiems tenka spręsti klausimus, susijusius su dideliu dviprasmiškumu bet kurioje projektavimo situacijoje. Šios netikrumo ir painiavos būsenos gali erzinti architektūros studentus. Kita vertus, tolerancija dviprasmiškumui – tai asmenybės bruožas, siejamas su kūrybiniu mąstymu. Todėl šiame straipsnyje siekiama išnagrinėti koreliaciją tarp architektūros studentų tolerancijos dviprasmiškumui ir jų kūrybiškumo, atliekant kokybinį tyrimą. Tyrėjai taikė mišrų metodą, o jų tyrimo objektu tapo 18 architektūros studentų. Šio tyrimo rezultatai atskleidė, kad yra reikšminga koreliacija tarp studentų kūrybinio mąstymo gebėjimų ir jų tolerancijos dviprasmiškumui. Rezultatai, kuriuos gavome, taip pat parodė, kad nėra statistiškai reikšmingos koreliacijos tarp studentų tolerancijos dviprasmiškumui ir to, ar jų atliekamas projektavimas yra kūrybiškas.

Reikšminiai žodžiai: architektūros studentai, kūrybiškumas, projektavimo problemos, projektavimo procesas, tolerancija dviprasmiškumui.

Keyword : architecture students, creativity, design problems, design process, tolerance of ambiguity

How to Cite
Mahmoud, N. E., Kamel, S. M., & Hamza, T. S. (2020). The relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and creativity in architectural design studio. Creativity Studies, 13(1), 179-198.
Published in Issue
Mar 23, 2020
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Allwood, C. M., & Selart, M. (Eds.). (2001). Decision making: Social and creative dimensions. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Anderson, T. D. (2010, June). Kickstarting creativity: Supporting the productive faces of uncertainty in information practice. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science “Unity in Diversity”, Part 2 (pp. 1–14). London, United Kingdom.

Arquero, J. L., & Tejero, C. (2009). Ambiguity tolerance levels in Spanish accounting students: A comparative study. Revista de Contabilidad, 12(1), 95–115.

Austerlitz, N., Blythman, M., Grove-White, A., Jones, B. A., Jones, C. A., Morgan, S. A., Orr, S., Shreeve, A., & Vaughan, S. (2008). Mind the gap: Expectations, ambiguity and pedagogy within art and design higher education. In L. Drew (Ed.), The student experience in art and design higher education: Drivers for change (pp. 125–148). Jill Rogers Associates Limited.

Ayyıldız Potur, A., & Barkul, Ö. (2006, March). Creative thinking in architectural design education. In Proceedings of the 1st International CIB Endorsed METU Postgraduate Conference Built Environment and Information Technologies (pp. 113–125). Ankara, Turkey.

Ayyıldız Potur, A., & Barkul, Ö. (2009). Gender and creative thinking in education: A theoretical and experimental overview. ITU Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, 6(2), 44–57.

Balgiu, B. A. (2014). Ambiguity tolerance in productional creativity. Lumen Social Sciences, III(1), 29–40.

Belluigi, D. Z. (2013). A proposed schema for the conditions of creativity in fine art studio practice. The International Journal of Arts Education, 14(18–19), 1–22.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

Budner, N. Y. S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30(1), 29–50.

Carabine, J. (2013). Creativity, art and learning: A psycho-social exploration of uncertainty. The International Journal of Art and Design Education, 32(1), 33–43.

Casakin, H. (2008). Factors of design problem-solving and their contribution to creativity. Open House International, 33(1), 46–60.

Casakin, H., & Kreitler, Sh. (2008). Correspondences and divergences between teachers and students in the evaluation of design creativity in the design studio. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 35(4), 666–678.

Cash, Ph., & Kreye, M. (2018). Exploring uncertainty perception as a driver of design activity. Design Studies, 54, 50–79.

Chan, Ch.-Sh. (2015). Style and creativity in design. Series: Studies in applied philosophy, epistemology and rational ethics. Springer International Publishing.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications.

Cho, J. Y. (2012, April). Spatial ability, creativity, and studio performance in architectural design. In T. Fischer, De K. Biswas, J. J. Ham, R. Naka, & W. X. Huang (Eds.), Beyond Codes and Pixels. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (pp. 131–140). Chennai, India.

Comadena, M. E. (1984). Brainstorming groups: Ambiguity tolerance, communication apprehension, task attraction, and individual productivity. Small Group Behavior, 15(2), 251–264.

Daalhuizen, J., Badke-Schaub, P., & Batill, S. M. (2009). Dealing with uncertainty in design practice: Issues for designer-centered methodology. Proceedings of ICED 09, The 17th International Conference on Engineering Design (pp. 147–158). Palo Alto, California. file:///C:/Users/1680/Downloads/ds58_9-147.pdf

Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds). (2010). Handbook of creativity. Series: Perspectives on Individual Differences. Plenum Press.

Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.

Gonçalves, M., Cardoso, C., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2014). What inspires designers? Preferences on inspirational approaches during idea generation. Design Studies, 35(1), 29–53.

Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2015). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. Series: Educational Assessment in an Information Age. Springer Science+Business Media.

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454.

Hamza, T. S., & Hassan, D. K. (2016). Consequential creativity: Student competency and lateral thinking incorporation in architectural education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(4), 587–612.

Herman, J. L., Stevens, M. J., Bird, A., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (2010). The tolerance for ambiguity scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(1), 58–65.

Hokanson, B., & Gibbons, A. (Eds.). (2014). Design in educational technology: Design Thinking, design process, and the design studio. Series: Educational communications and technology: Issues and innovations. Springer International Publishing.

Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences: Learning and instruction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Kim, K. H. (2011). The APA 2009 division 10 debate: Are the Torrance tests of creative thinking still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), 302–308.

Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified. Routledge/Architectural Press.

Litchfield, S. (2016, April). Negative capability in the design studio. Research Based Education, Vol. 1. International Peer Reviewed Conference AAE (pp. 338–347). London, United Kingdom.

Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A Data collector’s field guide. Family Health International.

Mahdizadeh Hakak, A., Biloria, N., & Ahmadi Venhari, A. (2014). Creativity in architecture – A review on effective parameters correlated with creativity in architectural design. Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 8(11), 1371–1379.

Merrotsy, P. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A trait of the creative personality? Creativity Research Journal, 25(2), 232–237.

Osmond, J., Bull, K., & Tovey, M. (2009). Threshold concepts and the transport and product design curriculum: Reports of research in progress. Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, 8(2), 169–175.

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.

Sachs, A. (1999). “Stuckness” in the design studio. Design Studies, 20(2), 195–209.

Schon, D. (1986). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. Series: Architecture and the higher learning. International Specialized Book Services.

Stoycheva, K. (2003, April). Talent, science, and education: How do we cope with uncertainty and ambiguities? Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Science Education: Talent Recruitment and Public Understanding. P. Csermely & L. Lederman (Eds.). (pp. 31–43). Budapest, Hungary.

Tan, A.-G. (Ed.). (2007). Creativity: A handbook for teachers. World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

Taura, T., & Nagai, Y. (Eds.). (2011). Design creativity 2010. Springer Verlag.

Toh, Ch. A., & Miller, S. R. (2016). Creativity in design teams: The Influence of personality traits and risk attitudes on creative concept selection. Research in Engineering Design, 27(1), 73–89.

Wallas, G. (2014). The art of thought. Solis Press.

Ward, Th. B., Finke, R. A., & Smith, S. S. (1995). Creativity and the mind: Discovering the genius within. Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Wu, X., Gu, X., & Zhang, H. (2016). The facilitative effects of ambiguous figures on creative solution. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(1), 44–51.

Zenasni, F., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: An empirical study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61–73.