2.1 Overview

Marcos Antonio de Lima Filho, PhD.

As expected, this thesis builds upon prior research connecting evolutionary theories to design. This literature review chapter offers a review of the current knowledge, organised into three parts, thus laying the foundation for the upcoming chapters. The first part (Section 2.2) presents a semi-systematic review of the leading design research journals. It synthesises how design evolution has been discussed within these journals, highlighting the limited number of scholars and papers addressing this issue. This section also acknowledges relevant non-peer-reviewed contributions such as books (Steadman, 1979/2008; Basalla, 1988; Eger & Ehlhardt, 2018) and doctoral theses (Ehlhardt, 2016).

The concept of evolution encompasses a vast array of meanings; therefore, it is imperative to clarify its specific meaning before proposing an evolutionary theory of design. The second part introduces the reader to some foundational principles of evolutionary thought, beginning with an overview of its history (Section 2.3) and then delving into its specific mechanisms of natural selection (Sections 2.4 to 2.7). You may choose to bypass these sections without compromising your comprehension of the thesis. Nevertheless, if you aim to evaluate the strength of the evolutionary analogy in this study, understanding these evolutionary concepts is crucial.

In this study, the concept of evolution proved instrumental in elucidating the underlying patterns within the data. It provided an excellent framework to start the process of constant comparison, which is a fundamental aspect of the Grounded Theory Method. However, avoiding a preliminary literature review is a basic tenet of classic grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967/2006; Glaser, 1978). In this approach, rather than reviewing the substantive literature first, the researcher postpones the review until the core category emerges (Holton & Walsh, 2017). Preconceptions, such as theoretical frameworks or extant theories, might obstruct this inductive process. Consequently, a classic grounded theorist must try to approach a study without succumbing to preconceptions, biases, or pre-existing hypotheses. This principle impacts how literature reviews are undertaken in such investigations:

Inasmuch as it is possible in an academic system, the grounded theorist should avoid in-depth previous research and conceptual/theoretical literature on the phenomenon of interest. An investigator wants to enter the study as nearly tabula rasa as possible. In fact, the investigator will enter the study not even knowing what phenomenon might emerge — thus a pre-investigation pertinent and focused literature review is not possible (Nathaniel, 2020).

Given the importance of adhering to grounded theory principles, it is essential to clarify the timing and approach of the literature review in this study. The initial assessment took place after the core category (evolution) emerged, thus establishing a comparative basis for a grounded theory on design evolution. Later, in response to examiner feedback, the semi-systematic literature review was carried out to situate this thesis within the field of design research (Section 2.2). In this revised version, I have also included a review of disruptive innovation theory (Section 2.8). These steps were undertaken not before but after the full articulation of the thesis, thereby adhering to grounded theory principles.