Dear Dick,

While I understand and agree with the kinds of issues you raise, it
seems odd to label the replies in this interesting conversation as
weak.

Conversation grows slowly and thinking takes time. Victor put forward
an important question - a series of questions, really, and his latest
post on fields of thick discourse enriches it further. Responding
thoughtfully takes time, especially if we are to do as you propose by
discussing what Victor's question may mean and how to pursue it from
a design perspective, examining the value of such inquiries for
design.

This kind of inquiry unfolds in time as people listen to each other,
taking on new thoughts, and seeing where they might think more
deeply. You often recommend that pedagogical approach. Patient
inquiry and development allows us to learn from each other and to
grow here. As an occasionally impatient interlocutor myself, I have
been trying to cultivate a broader range of virtues. This includes
allowing the conversation to unfold at its own pace.

There are probably several reasons that the conversation has not in
every instance taken the turn you would like to see. One is the
natural interest or predilection of each author. The other is a sense
of limits. On a list like PhD-Design, it is impossible to address
every aspect of each question without extraordinarily long replies.

However, there is one more reason. The way Victor asked the question
that launched the thread made a difference to the early answers that
came back.

Most people tried to answer the specific question that Victor asked:
"Why is so much research attention given to the process of design and
so little to its results - the products that are the outcomes of
designing, their value and social consequences?"

Some answered why and some suggested - as I did - that such studies
do take place. In doing so, I thought I did discuss what Victor's
question might mean by explicitly approaching it from another view.
Others did so as well. As I see it, most of the contributions to the
thread offered useful perspectives.

In my reply, I tried first to answer Victor's "Why do we find this
gap in design research," and second to state that this research does,
indeed, take place. However, I did not say it takes place in "other
disciplines." I said that this kind of inquiry takes place "under
different labels." I see these all as legitimate sectors of design
research. (I took that issue forward in another post.)

Victor asked two questions, really. One had to do with what is
missing in our field. The other had to do with the consequences of
designed artifacts. As we all know from survey design, the order of
the questions often influences the answers. Many of us focused on
Victor's first and most prominent question: "Why is so much research
attention given to the process of design and so little to its results
- the products that are the outcomes of designing, their value and
social consequences?"

The other question also interests many of us.

Victor's latest post expands and reframes his earlier notes in a
useful way. Most everyone who has answered so far seems to feel that
this offers value to the field of design research.

This is true for design practice as well. To quote an earlier reply,
"understanding more deeply 'the outcomes of designing, their value
and social consequences' will also help us to design better. By
helping us better understand the relation of parts to wholes in
dynamic systems, this constitutes one among several important areas
of design research."

Elsewhere, I've considered the question of what Buckminster Fuller
labeled "teleology." Fuller means the end, goal, or purpose toward
which we design in any given instance of design activity.

As you say this, "could be read as going to the heart of the field:
why are we designing? It is a question of purposes and ends--with
'consequences' as a means of discussing the various purposes that
designers have proposed and how well or poorly they have reached
their ends in individual products. Comparison of ends and outcomes
seems like the beginning of a serious debate that could be of value
to the design community--and perhaps even to the design studies
community."

For my part, I would be curious about how you would answer Victor's question.

Warm wishes,

Ken

--

Dick Buchanan wrote:

-snip-

I am surprised by how weak the responses have been to your question.
Instead of discussing what your question may mean, how it may be
pursued from a design perspective, and what the value of such
inquiries may be for design, most of the posts seem rather quick and
content to turn to other disciplines for information. For a list
devoted to research, inquiring minds do not seem to be doing much
inquiring.

I don't believe your question should be dismissed so lightly. "Little
questions" like yours can turn into important new lines of
inquiry--lines with refreshing relevancy to the value and practice of
design.

For example, your question could be read as going to the heart of the
field: why are we designing? It is a question of purposes and
ends--with "consequences" as a means of discussing the various
purposes that designers have proposed and how well or poorly they
have reached their ends in individual products. Comparison of ends
and outcomes seems like the beginning of a serious debate that could
be of value to the design community--and perhaps even to the design
studies community. This is certainly not another dry methodological
question. That horse is tired and needs a rest.

Most people in the field are well aware of the work in other
disciplines that bear on the consequences of technology and broad
product types. Such work tends to be either very narrow--as in
behavioral studies of specific features or practices--or very broad
and vague--as in huge social and cultural trends or patterns. The
narrow studies are sometimes useful in design, but in a rather narrow
way. The broad studies are not very actionable. The middle ground,
which is where designers work, seems not much studied from a design
perspective.

I have no idea where your question may lead in the mind of a creative
and ingenious doctoral student, but part of doctoral education should
deal with opening up questions for investigation.

It would be interesting to see a list of the "little questions" asked
by design researchers in the past. This would probably be more useful
to the research community than encyclopedic lists of answers.

-snip-