Dear Rosan,

Thanks for your reply. I tend to agree with some of the issues you
raise, at least I do in a roundabout way.

Part of my quest involves clarity. Sine your responses shifts the
meaning of what I wrote slightly, I will rephrase some issues to be
clear while responding to you.

(1) Your first comment (see 1, below) involves what we can learn from
the literature. This is a field where people too rarely review the
literature before attempting to answer questions or solve proems.

You are right to suggest that we cannot establish anything new by
studying past literature. Nevertheless, people in design research
often imagine they are doing something new when they are repeating
past projects, discovering old facts, or even repeating old answers.

This is beside the point. I did not suggest that we answer research
questions with book lists. I responded to a specific book list that
you offered in your answer to Maryam's research request.

You proposed a book list. Some people felt that your book list was
intended to establish the context of design. I suggested that if the
book list was intended to establish the context of design, then a
different book list might establish a context - as contrasted with
offering a specific approach.

(2) Cindy's note was accurate and relevant within the specific and
delimited context of the question that Maryam asked on the list. The
rest of us have no knowledge of your private correspondence, with
Maryam so we could not have known that these issues interested
Maryam. Maryam asked about consumer analysis research methods.

If your on-list reply involved answering Maryam's off-list questions,
I would have suggested answering off-list as many of us do when
answering research requests. The other approach would have been to
bring the off-list correspondence forward - with permission - to set
your own response in context.

Either way, though, that would have been an answer to a new question.
Your original post did not answer the specific question. That is the
core of Cindy's point, and that would not have changed whether Maryam
had more time or less for her research project.

(3) Understanding the history of user study probably is in order. The
same problem applies to your list here. Your list was a discussion of
design methods, not an overview of user study.

(4) The design methods movement is an important part of the history
of design and design research. We all agree on that.

There is room for variation when people describe different methods or
comparative methodological approaches to user-centered design, design
ethnography, user research, consumer analysis, or other such issues.

A full historical literature review requires acknowledging many
important contributions. This means acknowledging contributors from
many fields. My view is that we ought to acknowledge our predecessors
in design as well as acknowledging equally important predecessors in
anthropology, sociology, advertising, marketing, economics, or other
fields.

In contrast, a limited literature review for a specific purpose does
not require a comprehensive view back to the 1930s. Moreover, it does
not require reviewing the work of all contributors.

Again, though, your list was a quick selection of design methods
books. This is fine with me, but I do not see how it answered the
question posted here on consumer analysis research methods. That
said, I was pleased to locate a copy of Nigel Cross's Design
Engineering Methods a week or so back. My usual book suppliers had
long been out. And I agree that your list - as a list - was most
helpful.

One added thought is relevant here. In my experience, designers and
design researchers often neglect the work they draw on from other
fields. Good research requires acknowledging all sources.

(5) What I would like to see you explain more clearly is how the
perspective gained from understanding the design methods and
processes developed by the design methods movement will help us to
understand all the new tools and techniques of consumer analysis
research methods for design. In this last note, you argue that these
can help us to organize these different tools and techniques in a
meaningful way.

Perhaps this is true. This would place the list in a theoretical
context that gives it entirely new meaning.

In her letter to Cindy, Fatina suggested that you were "searching for
a design-led approach for consumer analysis or for another approach."
She believes that you offered a general theoretical framework for
your discussion.

IMHO, this is the one thing you did not offer. You offered a list of
books, but you did not explain your choices or set them in a
theoretical framework.

A clear description of how the design methods approach offers a way
to understand consumer analysis research methods, organize the tools
and techniques in a meaningful way, and apply them to design would be
a serious theoretical contribution. I know that the PhD-Design list
is not a journal, so I am not asking for a full paper on the topic.
What I am asking for is a clear explanation of your claim (see 5,
below). This would be a theoretical framework.

By way of substantiating my request for a robust theoretical
framework, I will mention that I have been struggling to answer the
five questions you asked me the other day. So far, I have spent about
three or four hours a day for the past few days working on a polished
note.

Over the four years since La Clusaz, you have posted many questions
to the list and many of us have devoted ourselves to providing rich
answers.

My challenge to you on this lovely spring evening is to provide the
description of the claim you make in statement 5: "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."

Best regards,

Ken



Rosan Chow wrote:

(1) "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."

(2) "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."

(3) "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."

(4) "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."

(5) "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."

--

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]