Dear Victor,

Thanks for your reply.

Three quick thoughts:

1) People work on these issues in many ways. I would argue that these
could all be seen as design research in different ways. One can as
easily label Donald Norman a design research scholar as an HCI
scholar. Today, an enormous part of our global economy involves
manufacturing computers, software, and different kinds of systems
structured around computing, information systems, and informatics -
including different kinds of computerized manufacturing of goods and
artifacts. All these goods and services are designed, and HCI is as
much a design branch as product design or furniture design.

But let's go back further. Donald Norman was a psychologist and
professor of psychology and cognitive science before he was an HCI
scholar. Then he was a vice president for product development at
Apple, and then at Hewlett Packard.

So much for the past. Today, Norman is Professor of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science at Northwestern University. He also
holds appointments as Professor of Cognitive Science and Psychology,
and he is Co-Director of the MMM Program that combines business,
engineering, and design. He is also co-director of the Segal Design
Institute.

As I see it, Donald Norman is as active in design research from a
design perspective as anyone on this list. Few of us on this list
have actually been involved first-hand in the planning and design of
as many products and services as he has been.

I would find it difficult to say that Donald Norman works "outside of design."

2) The specific notion I addressed was not that "study of the design
process was the central core of design research." I stated that some
claim "the primary purpose of design research is serving the design
profession by studying the design process." As Bernhard and others
have noted, this is central to the design methods movement and to
other kinds of design research.

I don't say this research is wrong or bad, simply that it is not the
only kind - but studying design process is central to many and it
accounts for an emphasis on process rather than other issues. One
reason for this may be that we teach design process in design
programs. This is the interest and focus of many faculty members and
design teachers. It seems natural that their research interests
should follow the same again. Again, it's not bad if it doesn't limit
the field.

At any rate, I do not believe in the notion that design process is
the core issue in design research. Since I do not believe this,
tracing the origins of the assumption hardly seems an interesting way
to spend my time.

As I noted in an earlier post, I hold a broad view of the nature and
categories of design research. Once again, I'll be immodest enough to
point to my views rather than views I do not hold. See Friedman
(2000) for a large overview. A better and more comprehensive
inventory and taxonomy of the field as I see it will be forthcoming.

3) I agree with you that these issues need more attention. Other
design fields address them. Perhaps one reason that we do not address
them on this list is that this issue is of less interest to people
who work in the art and design sector of design research as
contrasted with people who work in other sectors of design research.

This need not be so. It only takes a few persistent voices to launch
and stimulate a good thread.

It may also be that many people here already subscribe to other lists
and work in more than one sector of design research. I know that
conversations tend to be held where they are welcome.

Terry Love has pointed out that membership in this list is heavily
weighted toward the art and design sector, a sector that works with
something like 5% of the artifacts and services that people design
today. As many have pointed out, many people who subscribe to the
list prefer to read rather than post, so people who work with the
issues you raise may belong without posting.

To stimulate this discussion will take some work.

Why not? The list often entertains interesting ideas and issues - it
is a matter of developing the thread.

One thought to conclude. Perhaps people feel a bit shy about
addressing this issue. If I were not as immodest as I am, I would
certainly worry about posting my ideas on design research on a list
where even Donald Norman is considered to be "outside of design."

Warm wishes,

Ken


Reference

Friedman, Ken. 2000. "Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into
Practice." In IDATER 2000: International Conference on Design and
Technology Educational Research and Development. P. H. Roberts and E.
W. L. Norman, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design and
Technology, Loughborough University, 5-32. Available from:

https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2134/1360




Victor Margolin wrote:

--snip--

Thank you for your post. After almost thirty years in the field of
design history and design research I am probably as well aware as
anyone that studies of designed objects and their effects are being
done outside of design. In fact Donald Norman, now known to many
design researchers came from HCI and made a big splash with his
contention that many products are badly designed. His subsequent work
on computers and other products has also been useful. I can cite also
Paul Atkinson's studies of computer technology and its history
published in Design Issues and the Journal of Design History. Paul
and others have raised interesting questions about why developments
in a particular technology went a certain way.

I don't remember ever hearing anyone enunciate that the study of the
design process was the central core of design research. Perhaps you
could trace the origin of that assumption for me. Many years ago when
Bruce Archer made his taxonomy of topics for design research, design
process was only one of them. I am also not clear how some of the
studies of the design process that we read about help designers. Can
we really say that the work of Donald Schon has changed the way
designers work? And who else's work has changed the way designers
work. I'm sure some has but I don't see that the kinds of studies I
know about are as closely allied to changes in practice as you seem
to be suggesting.

At the design research conferences I have been to, there are rarely
any papers on products and their social consequences, particularly
papers that critique designs, particularly more complex ones like
computer systems, the web, trains, cars, transport systems. These are
the kinds of papers that lead to social change. In fact, products hit
the market with very little critique except for off line grumbling. I
would like to see more discussion of this kind of work on this list.
There has been little so far. Also, there are intense discussions
going on about the ongoing design of the worldwide web from the point
of view of software integration, capabilities, social interactions.
This is a huge topic. Why don't we see more of it on our list? I will
stand by my original contention that design researchers, at least the
ones within the fold of this list, have pretty much ignored research
on products and their effects. In fact, it is reasonable to assume
that they would have a better insight into the products themselves as
they discuss their consequences than social scientists for whom the
artifacts may be simply means to social change. More comments welcome.

--snip--

--

Prof. Ken Friedman
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Oslo

Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen

+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat

email: [log in to unmask]