Shuichiro Ogawa
日本語

Notes · updated 2026-07-09

What Is Reframing?

Reframing is the act of restructuring the frame through which a problem is viewed, thereby opening new solution spaces. Rather than solving the problem as given, it changes the definition of the problem itself.

Goffman (1974) introduced the term frame in sociology to denote the cognitive structures through which people organize their experience1. Schon and Rein (1994) applied this concept to policy controversies, arguing that when opposing parties view the same situation through different frames, debate over solutions becomes futile2. When a problem proves intractable, the obstacle is not the absence of a solution but the way the problem has been framed.

The wicked problems formulated by Rittel and Webber (1973) exhibit this property in its most extreme form3. For problems whose formulation is inseparable from their resolution, no “correct problem definition” exists in advance. How a problem is framed determines which solutions become visible. Reframing is the act of abandoning a stalled frame and re-examining the problem from an alternative one. This lineage is mapped in the literature map on reframing as exploration.

Cognitive Mechanisms of Reframing

Abduction and Frame Generation

Dorst (2011) located the cognitive core of design thinking in abduction4. Neither deduction (deriving how from what) nor induction (deriving laws from observation), design abduction simultaneously invents a “frame” and a “working principle” that could produce a desired outcome (value).

This cognitive operation proceeds in two stages. The first stage (abduction-1) applies a known frame to a new situation. The second stage (abduction-2) creates an entirely new frame when no known frame can resolve the situation. Reframing corresponds to this second stage of abduction. The span of methods from abduction-2 to problem structuring is surveyed in problem-definition-methods-literature.

Cramer-Petersen, Christensen, and Ahmed-Kristensen (2019) empirically validated this theoretical claim through protocol study5. They demonstrated quantitatively that the abduction-deduction compound pattern is dominant during idea generation: designers generate hypothetical frames (abduction) and then examine their consequences (deduction) in a reciprocal process that constitutes the actual cognitive structure of reframing.

Problem-Solution Co-Evolution

Dorst and Cross (2001) observed the co-evolution of problem definition and solution conception in creative design processes6. The problem space and solution space are not independent: exploring solutions updates the understanding of the problem, and redefining the problem opens new solution spaces. Within this co-evolutionary process, reframing can be located as the moment when a discontinuous shift occurs in the problem space.

Maher and Poon (1996) formalized this co-evolution as a computational model7. In the process of shuttling between problem space and solution space, changes in one space restructure the other. Reframing occurs when exploration in the solution space transforms the very structure of the problem space.

Wiltschnig, Christensen, and Ball (2013) extended this co-evolution model to team design, demonstrating through video protocol analysis that the frequency and direction of problem-solution co-evolution within teams correlates with creative outcomes8. Co-evolution as an individual cognitive phenomenon is amplified through team interaction.

The 9-Step Frame Creation Process

Dorst (2015) formalized a systematic approach to reframing as the nine-step Frame Creation method9.

  1. Archaeology: Excavate the history and context of the problem
  2. Paradox: Identify contradictions within the problem
  3. Context: Describe the broader context surrounding the problem
  4. Field: Map the actors and stakeholder interests involved
  5. Themes: Extract deep-seated patterns and themes
  6. Frames: Generate candidate new frames
  7. Futures: Explore the consequences entailed by each frame
  8. Transformation: Evaluate the changes that would result from applying a frame
  9. Integration: Translate the chosen frame into an action plan

The crux of this method lies between steps 5 and 6. Rather than addressing the surface level of the problem (what is happening), the process excavates its deeper structure (why these patterns arise) and “invents” a new frame from these deep themes. Frame Creation is not brainstorming. It is an intellectual operation that analytically comprehends the structure of a problem and then restructures it.

Practical Methods for Activating Reframing

Reframing does not depend on innate creativity. The following methods are designed to deliberately induce frame shifts. The originators and primary sources of these methods are traced in problem-definition-methods-industry.

1. Analogical Reasoning

This method brings in structurally similar cases from a different domain and applies them to the current problem. Casakin and Goldschmidt (1999) experimentally demonstrated that the use of analogies improves design quality10. According to Gentner’s (1983) structure-mapping theory, effective analogies are grounded not in surface-level similarity but in structural correspondence of relations11.

Asking “How is this problem solved in an entirely different domain?” creates an opportunity to step outside the current frame.

Moreno et al. (2016) conducted a controlled experiment with 97 domain experts and demonstrated that the combination of abstract problem re-representation and analogy overcomes design fixation and improves creativity scores12. A counterintuitive finding was that highly similar analogies are not necessarily more beneficial; structural similarities from distant domains are more effective at promoting reframing.

2. How Might We (HMW)

This method transforms a problem into an open-ended question of the form “How might we…?” It was popularized by IDEO and the d.school. The power of HMW lies in redefining a problem as an opportunity rather than a constraint. “Users are dropping off” becomes “How might we help users experience the value within the first three minutes?” — and with that shift, the frame moves.

HMW does require skill in calibrating the level of abstraction. An HMW that is too broad (“How might we make users happy?”) fails to guide action, while one that is too narrow (“How might we optimize the button color?”) does not constitute reframing.

3. Assumption Surfacing

This method enumerates the assumptions implicitly held by the current frame and deliberately challenges each one. Mason and Mitroff (1981) systematized this approach in the context of strategic planning13.

The procedure proceeds in three steps. (a) Exhaustively list the assumptions underlying the current solution. (b) Invert each assumption: “What if this assumption were false?” (c) Examine how the problem looks under the inverted assumption.

Assumption inversion is a technique for consciously manipulating the structure embedded in a problem’s frame.

4. TRIZ Contradiction Analysis

TRIZ, the theory of inventive problem solving systematized by Altshuller, identifies technical contradictions (relationships in which improving one parameter degrades another) and resolves them using 40 inventive principles14. The reframing effect of TRIZ lies in its refusal of the frame “trade-offs are inevitable.” Rather than accepting a contradiction as given, TRIZ seeks an alternative dimension in which the contradiction does not exist.

5. Speculative Design

Speculative design, as systematized by Dunne and Raby (2013), materializes “what if” scenarios and uses them to interrogate present assumptions15. Rather than solving a real-world problem, it envisions alternative realities, thereby exposing the contingency (the lack of necessity) of the current frame.

Barendregt and Vaage (2021) analyzed speculative design as sharing the same cognitive structure as philosophical “thought experiments,” theorizing the mechanism by which hypothetical scenarios reframe the very premises of a problem16.

6. The Reframing Matrix

Proposed by Morgan (1993), this method examines a single problem simultaneously from four different perspectives (product, planning, potential, people)17. Each perspective provides a distinct frame, surfacing problem structures invisible from any single viewpoint. The forced application of multiple perspectives promotes disengagement from the dominant frame.

7. Problem Reversal

This method inverts the objective of the problem 180 degrees, asking “How could we make this problem as bad as possible?” It is one of the techniques within de Bono’s (1970) lateral thinking18. Answers to the reversed problem reveal implicit assumptions embedded in the original problem’s frame.

8. Moving Beyond the 5 Whys

The “5 Whys” from the Toyota Production System is a root-cause analysis technique, but it also functions as a reframing tool. Repeating “why” elevates the level of abstraction of the problem, enabling framing at different hierarchical levels. However, simply tracing the causal chain keeps one within the same frame. Reframing occurs when, at a given level, the answer to “why” branches into multiple pathways and a different pathway is selected.

9. Design Games and Generative Tools

Among the co-design methods systematized by Sanders and Stappers (2008), design games and generative toolkits (make tools) enable participants to externalize their frames through the material expression of their experiences, creating opportunities for reconfiguration19. The “thinking through making” process of card sorting, collage, and prototyping induces frame shifts that are difficult to reach through verbal analysis alone.

10. Collaboration with Experts from Other Disciplines

Hargadon and Sutton (1997) studied IDEO’s design process and showed that technology brokering — combining knowledge from different industries — generates innovation20. Experts from other disciplines bring different frames to a problem. Questions such as “How would this problem be understood in the medical context?” or “How would architecture solve it?” destabilize existing frames.

11. Concept Expansion through C-K Theory

Hatchuel and Weil’s (2009) C-K theory (Concept-Knowledge theory) formalizes design as an interaction between a concept space (C) and a knowledge space (K)21. Introducing “undecided propositions” (proposals whose truth value is indeterminate) into the concept space and expanding them with knowledge causes the concepts to branch. These branchings correspond to reframing. The advantage of C-K theory is that it treats reframing not as a mystical event but as a logic of propositional manipulation.

Cognitive Biases That Inhibit Reframing

Reframing is difficult because human cognition tends to fixate on existing frames.

Design fixation is the phenomenon in which early solution ideas or presented examples constrain the exploration of alternatives. Jansson and Smith (1991) experimentally demonstrated that designers who are shown examples tend to reproduce the features of those examples22.

Functional fixedness is the phenomenon in which a person becomes unable to conceive of alternative uses for an object because they are locked into its conventional function (Duncker, 1945). In the design context, existing product categories and usage frames prevent radical redefinition.

Anchoring is the bias in which judgments are pulled toward the first piece of information presented (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). The problem definition contained in a design brief functions as an anchor, making it difficult to escape the brief’s frame.

Liedtka (2015) argued that the design thinking process (empathize, define, ideate, prototype, test) possesses a structure that systematically mitigates these cognitive biases23. Empathizing with diverse users loosens anchoring, prototyping breaks fixation, and iteration prevents frame rigidity.

Hookway, Svensson, and Heiden (2019) applied Liedtka’s framework to healthcare innovation in Sweden, demonstrating through practice cases that reframing at the problem definition stage is effective in reducing anchoring and confirmation bias24.

Reframing at the Team and Organizational Level

Reframing is not solely an individual cognitive operation; it also arises through interaction within teams and organizations.

Stompff, Smulders, and Henze (2016) showed that surprise functions as a trigger for reframing in multistakeholder innovation processes25. Unexpected information or stakeholder reactions destabilize a team’s frame and compel problem redefinition. Rather than eliminating surprise, deliberately designing situations in which surprise can occur becomes a method for organizational reframing.

The boundary objects conceptualized by Star and Griesemer (1989) also function as reframing devices26. Placing shareable artifacts (prototypes, diagrams, models) between parties who hold different frames makes each party’s frame visible, creates collisions, and generates opportunities for restructuring.

Valkenburg and Dorst (1998) observed the reflective practice of design teams and described the process by which frames are shared and shifted within a team27. Effective teams maintained a flexible stance of tentatively adopting frames proposed by individual members and discarding them when they proved unproductive.

Reframing Can Be Deliberately Activated

Reframing is not a mystical flash of insight; it can be deliberately activated through structured methods and environmental design. Dorst’s Frame Creation activates it analytically, analogy through structural mapping, and assumption surfacing through logical inversion — each induces frame shifts through a distinct mechanism.

Environmental design operates similarly. Inviting experts from other disciplines, placing prototypes as boundary objects, and setting up experiments where surprise can arise — all are devices that physically and socially loosen frame fixation.

A critical distinction in activating reframing is that frame shifting and divergent thinking are not the same thing. Divergent thinking expands options within a frame. Reframing restructures the frame itself. Brainstorming is effective as a tool for divergent thinking, but as long as participants share the same frame, it does not lead to reframing. Reframing occurs when input from “outside” the frame (analogy, cross-disciplinary perspectives, surprise, the discovery of contradiction) destabilizes the existing frame.

References

  • Altshuller, G. S. (1984). Creativity as an Exact Science. Gordon & Breach.
  • Barendregt, L., & Vaage, N. S. (2021). Speculative Design as Thought Experiment. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 7(3), 374–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2021.06.001
  • Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), 153–175.
  • Cramer-Petersen, C. L., Christensen, B. T., & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2019). Empirically analysing design reasoning patterns: Abductive-deductive reasoning patterns dominate design idea generation. Design Studies, 60, 39–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.001
  • de Bono, E. (1970). Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step. Harper & Row.
  • 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
  • Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. MIT Press.
  • Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
  • Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press.
  • Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.
  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press.
  • Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749.
  • Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design, 19(4), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0043-4
  • Hookway, S., Svensson, A., & Heiden, B. (2019). The Problem with Problems: Reframing and Cognitive Bias in Healthcare Innovation. The Design Journal, 22(sup1), 2083–2095. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1595438
  • Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F
  • Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12163
  • Maher, M. L., & Poon, J. (1996). Modeling Design Exploration as Co-Evolution. Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, 11(3), 195–209.
  • Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. Wiley.
  • Moreno, D. P., Blessing, L. T. M., Yang, M. C., Hernández, A. A., & Wood, K. L. (2016). Overcoming design fixation: Design by analogy studies and nonintuitive findings. AI EDAM, 30(2), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060416000068
  • Morgan, G. (1993). Imaginization: New Mindsets for Seeing, Organizing, and Managing. Sage.
  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
  • Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
  • Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. Basic Books.
  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.
  • Stompff, G., Smulders, F., & Henze, L. (2016). Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multistakeholder innovation. Design Studies, 47, 187–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.004
  • Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00011-8
  • Wiltschnig, S., Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2013). Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design. Design Studies, 34(5), 515–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.01.002

Footnotes

  1. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press. ↩

  2. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. Basic Books. ↩

  3. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. ↩

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

  5. Cramer-Petersen, C. L., Christensen, B. T., & Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2019). Empirically analysing design reasoning patterns: Abductive-deductive reasoning patterns dominate design idea generation. Design Studies, 60, 39–70. ↩

  6. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. ↩

  7. Maher, M. L., & Poon, J. (1996). Modeling Design Exploration as Co-Evolution. Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, 11(3), 195–209. ↩

  8. Wiltschnig, S., Christensen, B. T., & Ball, L. J. (2013). Collaborative problem–solution co-evolution in creative design. Design Studies, 34(5), 515–542. ↩

  9. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. MIT Press. ↩

  10. Casakin, H., & Goldschmidt, G. (1999). Expertise and the use of visual analogy: implications for design education. Design Studies, 20(2), 153–175. ↩

  11. Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170. ↩

  12. Moreno, D. P., Blessing, L. T. M., Yang, M. C., Hernández, A. A., & Wood, K. L. (2016). Overcoming design fixation: Design by analogy studies and nonintuitive findings. AI EDAM, 30(2), 185–199. ↩

  13. Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. Wiley. ↩

  14. Altshuller, G. S. (1984). Creativity as an Exact Science. Gordon & Breach. ↩

  15. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press. ↩

  16. Barendregt, L., & Vaage, N. S. (2021). Speculative Design as Thought Experiment. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 7(3), 374–402. ↩

  17. Morgan, G. (1993). Imaginization: New Mindsets for Seeing, Organizing, and Managing. Sage. ↩

  18. de Bono, E. (1970). Lateral Thinking: Creativity Step by Step. Harper & Row. ↩

  19. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. ↩

  20. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749. ↩

  21. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). C-K design theory: an advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design, 19(4), 181–192. ↩

  22. Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11. ↩

  23. Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: Linking Design Thinking with Innovation Outcomes through Cognitive Bias Reduction. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(6), 925–938. ↩

  24. Hookway, S., Svensson, A., & Heiden, B. (2019). The Problem with Problems: Reframing and Cognitive Bias in Healthcare Innovation. The Design Journal, 22(sup1), 2083–2095. ↩

  25. Stompff, G., Smulders, F., & Henze, L. (2016). Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multistakeholder innovation. Design Studies, 47, 187–214. ↩

  26. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. ↩

  27. Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249–271. ↩

← All Notes · Home