Dear Victor,
This is a good question. Let me respond by turning it in a slightly
different direction.
There is a great deal of research in these issues. It simply shows up
under different labels than "design research."
In debates on design research, one of the perpetual themes that comes
up is the notion that the primary purpose of design research is
serving the design profession by studying the design process. This
kind of statement -- and statements like it -- have been put forward
frequently on this list and other design lists.
Those who disagree with the proposition that the primary purpose of
design research is serving the design profession by studying the
design process are sometimes told that we are not genuinely
interested in design or design research but something else.
One reasonable purpose of design research is service to the design
profession by studying the design process. When this is stated as the
only purpose or the primary purpose of design research, the logical
outcome is that "the outcomes of designing, their value and social
consequences" are not an appropriate form of design research.
Fortunately, this doesn't bother those of us who do this kind of
work. In fact, research on these issues shows up regularly in such
fields as sociology, informatics, cognitive science, psychology,
medicine, anthropology, law, economics, learning theory, organization
studies, and more. Because the effects and results of design process
and designed artifacts are generally known through their impact on
human beings, this kind of research generally turns up in -- or at
the borders of -- the social and behavioral sciences. Nevertheless,
you'll also find this kind of work in logistics, engineering,
ecology, geography, mathematics, and other fields.
Research involves many kinds of questions. I am still convinced that
knowing how things work and why is as vital as knowing how to do
thing. I'd be willing to argue that 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.
Lubomir's insightful post on the tendency of many list conversations
to turn political reflects a simple fact: whenever we discuss what we
do in a fluid and developing field such as design research, people
sometimes take statements of several kinds as political challenges.
In trying to unpack issues and teased out varieties of meaning, for
example, I have occasionally been accused of policing disciplinary
boundaries or academic reputations. While this usually puzzles me, I
understand where those kinds of statements come from. People often
treat open questions as political, asking whose interests a question
or an answer serves rather than simply engaging in inquiry for what
Richard Feynman called the pleasure of finding things out.
Anyhow, thanks for this question. And thanks, Lubomir and Johann, for
your answers.
Ken
Victor Margolin wrote:
I have a question for the list. 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. It seems to me that one result of design research
should be to serve as a critical lens for evaluating the results of
designing. Of course, research into sustainable products is a
promising direction but there are so many more things that are
designed about which we don't know much. What about the way that new
digital products like cell phones and ipods are changing
socialization values. What about the changing ideas about the design
of public space.We seem to leave all those and other questions
related to the social consequences of designing to other disciplines.
|