Dear Ken

I have a different thought on this:
no book, whatever book, will ever 'answer' any research question that is
aimed to establish something new. what is relevant is to be created, not
given.

i think Cindy's criticisms on my suggestions would have carried more weight
if Maryam were seeking advice to conduct a consumer analysis for a design
project that had to been done by next week.

I had received an off-list reply from Maryam explaining her goals and
circumstances for her inquiry before I gave my opinions. If I was not
mistaken,, Maryam was seeking a deeper understanding on consumer analysis
for design purposes and not just wanting to learn to apply the tools and
techniques. knowing a bit of history of 'user study' is in order.

I agree with you that 'design methods movement' or 'design methods' in
general is but only an approach to understanding designing. but like it or
not, it forms part of the intellectual inquiry into designing which i
believe any person who is aiming for a phd in design should be familiar
with, regardless of research topic.

but more importantly, i suggested (to Maryam) to get familiar with 'design
methods' because as i said, despite the many new techiques and tools
developed for user study in recent years, the fundamental assumption and the
basic principle of user study for design was laid down more than 30 years
ago by John Chris who further refered back to Dreyfuss in the 1950s.

user (consumer) analysis has been a part of design process. i personally
find it uncomfortable that many current literatures on 'user-centered
design', 'design ethnography', 'user research methods', or whatever it is
called, give so little acknowledgement to our forerunners in design.

i find it important that when others don't, design students/researchers
should. not only that, i find it useful to use the perspective gain from the
understanding of design methods/processes to see all the new tools and
techniques for 'consumer analysis for design'. it will help organize all
these different tools and techniques in a meaningful way. it is therefore,
very relevant to Maryam's question.

hope this clarifies a bit. rosan



Ken Friedman wrote:

> What makes this thread interesting as a case in logic is the fact
> that the design methods approach is not the contextual whole of
> design or design process. That is what makes a list of design methods
> books irrelevant as an answer to Maryam's question. Maryam may well
> find the book list relevant as a person. Her views would not change
> the fact that a book list on design methods and the design methods
> movement fails to answer a question on consumer analysis research
> methods.
>
> In response to your post, I would suggest that design methods as a
> specific way of approaching design practice is not the larger context
> of design. It is one approach to design.
>
> A book list intended to establish the general context of design is
> another matter. For that, I would include the book you wrote with
> Erik Stolterman. Other authors on my list would be Christopher
> Alexander, Victor Margolin, Dick Buchanan, John Warfield, Louis
> Bucciarelli, Buckminster Fuller, and Herbert Simon. Books by these
> authors attempt to define the context of design in a way that most of
> the design methods books do not generally do.
>
> As I see it, the design methods approach is one form of practice
> within the larger context. Christopher Alexander's point, in fact, is
> precisely that design methods approach to design is only one
> approach. This is also John Chris Jones's current view. In
> Alexander's view, it is a mistaken approach. I do not agree entirely
> with Alexander on this point. I remain interested in design methods.
> Where I do agree with Alexander is that the design methods approach
> is one approach to design among many. Most of us recognize multiple
> approaches, some useful, others less so.
>
> We do need to understand the contextual whole of design.
>
> The design methods movement made important contributions to design
> practice and even to understanding design. Nevertheless, we do not
> need to study design methods to understand the contextual whole of
> design.
>
> On this basis, I would say that Cindy's point was clear and
> reasonable. While I tend to think that Rosan was a little off the
> mark in offering advice on graduate education, it's a free world - or
> it should be. I am still busy trying to answer the five questions
> Rosan asked me a few days ago.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken
>
> Harold Nelson wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> There may be another option to consider. Drawing from the design
> concept of 'composition' and the systems concept of 'emergence', it
> is possible to consider that the specific cannot be understood or
> valued without an understanding of the contextual whole-the whole
> that emerges from the interrelationships of the specifics and the
> substance of the specifics themselves. For me this defines some of
> the intent of a design dialogue.
>
> -snip-
>
> --
>
> Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
> Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
> Department of Leadership and Organization
> Norwegian School of Management
>
> Design Research Center
> Denmark's Design School
>
> Faculty of Art, Media, and Design
> Staffordshire University (Visiting)
>
> +46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
>
> email: [log in to unmask]