I just want to join this post by Cindy Jackson, as well as the post by
Amanda Bill. Both posts highlight important problems. I think this is the
reality. At least, this is my experience. We need to acknowledge these
problems before we can think about solutions.
Lubomir Popov
At 09:26 AM 10/3/2004 -0400, Cindy Jackson wrote:
>Dear Jon,
>
>Just back from a trip to Europe and still lagged out, but I’ve got to take
>a whack at your question.
>
>There’s lots of good design research underway in lots of places. The fact
>that design teachers and design students nearly never use it or cite it
>says more about the culture of design schools than about design research.
>But it does point to a troubling problem that you describe.
>
>IMHO, the problem is this: too many design teachers and design students
>engaged in research refuse to see their work as part of a larger world.
>Instead, they take a “we are the world” attitude toward their work and the
>place it has in solving problems. It’s not an “inferiority complex.” It’s
>a form of passive-aggressive behavior.
>
>You encounter this kind of behavior in immature disciplines where people
>are insecure about their status in elation to mature or respected research
>fields. You also see it in second-rate and third-rate departments that
>teach in mature disciplines.
>
>The fear that we may not be good enough leads many people to ignore and
>neglect research other than their own or work outside their own field.
>They neglect it to avoid feeling weak by comparison.
>
>What is particularly telling is the fact that design teachers and design
>students don’t read the literature of their own field. Design students
>cite the designers they see in design magazines heavy on pictures and
>personal praise much like art students admire the artists they read about
>in art magazines. That means they focus on designers who show up in
>Wallpaper, Domus, or Metropolis rather than examine topics that show up in
>Design Issues or Design Studies. The conferences where these teachers and
>students present their work are heavy on show and tell sessions, but weak
>on carefully framed examples of outstanding design solutions or
>discussions of intriguing problems located in relation to research issues.
>
>We work with researchers from several fields, and my experience of good
>researchers is an explicit awareness of research. This includes
>research-oriented designers and design groups as well as people in
>marketing, strategy, economics, consumer research, anthropology, and sociology.
>
>We find that the people we meet are aware of work by others in their own
>field. Many are aware of work in other fields. More importantly, they feel
>no shame in borrowing from other fields. Those who publish promote their
>work from a position of engagement and humility, not a position of vanity.
>If their work is known, it’s not because they promote it a la Wallpaper or
>Metropolis. It’s because the work is good, and because they work in a
>context where others cite the work and use it.
>
>There’s hope, though. I’ve mentioned Liz Sanders, and you’ll find
>excellent work on her web site. Don Norman and Jakob Nielsen have great
>sites. So do Edward Tufte. These are all professional practitioners who
>come to design with research backgrounds in other fields. You’ll also find
>some design schools with a solid research basis Ivrea, Illinois
>Institute of Technology, Milan Polytechnic, and Stanford are certainly
>good examples. I’ve been enjoying the interviews in the NextD journal.
>
>There are also a few good books that demonstrate solid work. MIT Press
>published a new book on design research recently. I’ve also made good use
>of an older book on product development by Susan Squires and Byran Byrne.
>
>We do have good examples of design research perspectives on this list.
>
>On this list, I particularly enjoy Rob Curedale’s contributions because
>his industrial background allows him to think about research issues with
>the experience of a senior professional practitioner. That’s uncommon
>among design school teachers, and the combined lack of senior professional
>experience with the lack of senior research experience makes for some of
>the problems you describe. While I don’t always agree with Prof. Curedale,
>I find his well-grounded viewpoint allows me to agree or disagree in an
>informed way.
>
>I also like Ken Friedman’s notes. He takes a rigorous theoretical approach
>that appeals to me. I like his willingness to talk his position through
>step by step, and I like the fact that he makes his evidence explicit.
>
>My all-time favorite is Keith Russell. As a philosophy major in college, I
>developed a taste for sly puzzles and sparkling footwork. If Muhammad Ali
>had been a philosopher, he would have been Keith Russell.
>
>There are more … I won’t go through the whole list, but I find this an
>informative and entertaining place. Fields grow through dialogue in
>central meeting points. This is a place where we can generate ideas and
>debate research concepts. One important step we can take here is to cite
>the work that interests us when we write, developing a richer sense of the
>field as a whole.
>
>These are a few personal thoughts. If we’re going to make progress, it’s
>time to face up to some of the structural problems in our field rather
>than worry about the structural problems of academia. Design research is
>an important field for the future, so I don’t want to get sidetracked by
>questions of vanity vs. modesty.
>
>Design research is young. It’s still got a lot to be modest about.
>
>The real question is how to improve the field so that we can contribute.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Cindy Jackson
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
>Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
|