Comparative study demonstrates that cross-cultural collaboration shifts design thinking toward value deliberation in students, highlighting a transition toward ethical paradigm innovation.
In an era of global sustainability challenges, design education faces inherent limitations when confined to monocultural contexts. While cross-cultural communication holds promise for transcending these limitations, its specific mechanisms for fostering conceptual innovation in sustainable design education remain underexplored. This study investigates how cross-cultural collaboration influences conceptual generation in sustainable design education. To operationalize this inquiry, a three-stage “Orientation-Practice-Assessment” pedagogical framework was developed and validated for short-term cross-cultural projects. A comparative design was employed, involving an experimental group of 44 students from 15 countries across Asia, Europe, Africa, and Oceania, and a control group of 34 monocultural Chinese students. Guided by constructivist epistemology, data were collected through semi-structured interviews, participatory observations, and design outcome analyses, and analyzed using Gioia methodology and triangulation. Findings reveal that cross-cultural groups activated tacit knowledge through cognitive conflicts and value negotiations, shifting design thinking from technical execution to value deliberation. This shift represents a paradigm move from problem-solving to social diagnosis. In contrast, monocultural groups remained within established conceptual frameworks, applying explicit knowledge to technical optimization. This study demonstrates cross-cultural communication as a catalyst for transforming sustainable design education from skills training toward ethical internalization and paradigm innovation, offering new epistemological insights for integrating global and local perspectives in design education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: