Dear Jon and Kerry,

With a feet in both worlds, I'd have to say neither can be labeled "leader"
or "follower" in design research. Both are vital stakeholders in a large
process.

Industry clearly leads on some fronts: the pressure of rapid response and
time-to-market challenges means that industry simply has to produce results.
In many cases, this means huge programs of well funded, first-class
research, especially applied research. In other cases, it means throwing new
products into the deep end of the pool where market forces or evolution
serve a test function that becomes the equivalent of research, often at high
cost. The logic of markets is sometimes such that this may be as good a way
as any to sort out products or developments, but it is also wasteful and
destructive.

The academic world clearly leads in other areas. Time and academic freedom
are major reasons for this. Scholars and scientists (including design
researchers) have the time to develop new approaches and fundamental
knowledge that companies can't afford. Highly skilled specialists who want
to know how things work have the time to chip away at problems until they
get somewhere. Some of the major design innovations of our time developed
this way. Just look at how we communicate with each other. The Internet was
born when a group of universities and research centers tried to solve some
challenging communication problems. The World Wide Web was born at CERN. The
concept of the Web browser was born at a university along with the first
effective browser. So as the first and most widespread e-mail program. And
then there's Google. The logic of academic research is also that there's
time to waste, so an evolutionary cycle also takes hold there.

In my experience, things move on a project-by-project basis. Depends on who
is funding things, depends on the results they need and the time they have
to bring them in. Some companies get lots of good products by using the 3M
"10%" rule that allows any employee to use up to 10% of working time to work
on any product idea that seems exciting. Some universities establish
partnerships with other universities and with industry. Universities can
afford long-term research, blue sky work, and research into theoretical
issues that industry can't even think about, at least not since Bell Labs
won the last of its Nobel Prizes.

When industry leads in design research, though, it is often a matter of
skill and scale. Designers who work in high quality teams participate in
effective research. This is uncommon for single practitioners and designers
in small design firms, especially not small firms that are strapped to the
wheel of studio production billing in the struggle to pay their monthly
overhead. In that world, only designers with a strong background in research
have the judgement and knowledge base to deal with research in a serious
way. They get that background in their academic studies, and training
designers to recognize and find the research problems at the core of design
assignments is one important reason for design research in universities.

Lots of good people keep a foot in both worlds. My favorite is Sonic Rim
president Liz Sanders. She couldn't do what she does with a strong academic
foundation and she couldn't do what she does without active engagement in
industrial practice.

These are just some quick back-from-Europe thoughts.

Sincerely,

Cindy Jackson

_________________________________________________________________
Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to
School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx