Gunnar makes some interesting points that could be explored in a  
number of ways. Here are some thoughts on some of these.

> I was familiar with most of what Karel listed (in one case through  
> Karel's past sharing of the information on another listserv.) But  
> little of his list corresponds with what most graphic designers do.
>
> I would argue that the sort of design that Karel does (particularly  
> in the realm of prescription pharmaceuticals) falls closer to  
> medicine (evidenced based or otherwise) than to most of what most  
> graphic designers do and should be considered in much the same way  
> that we look at the rest of the medical field.

I would partially disagree with your conclusion. Some of what is  
'missing' in current practice in providing information about  
pharmaceuticals is an awareness of crafts like typography. This is an  
area of shared craft between information and graphic designers.  
Indeed, the provision of medicine information has much more affinity  
with other areas of information provision and text design generally  
than it has with medical science. One of the recurrent problems with  
research undertaken in this area is that those doing the research  
tend to look at medical research literature for precedents rather  
than the more fragmented but useful practical and research literature  
in typography.

But I think there are other ways in which graphic design and  
information design differ in emphasis, which makes much of the design  
research literature irrelevant to graphic design. Indeed, in so far  
as what I have in mind is relevant to other fields of design, they  
too would find the design research literature irrelevant.

To explain my point I'm going to use another area of practice, where  
we can see the differences clearly. I'd like to contrast weather  
forecasting and rain making ceremonies. If you are in the business of  
making weather forecasts--evidence, research, and theory play an  
important role. If you are in the business of running rain making  
ceremonies what matters is the quality of the ritual. Quite different  
ways of thinking and evaluating are involved in judging the 'success'  
of each.

I think it is plausible to argue that much (though not all) of what  
graphic designers do is ritual. It is concerned with the ritual of  
display. Institutions partake in a ritual of displaying themselves as  
they would like others to see them. For all sorts of 'evidence based'  
reasons this does not usually work the way institutions would like it  
to, but that is not the point. The ritual is the thing, and the  
importance lies in its visibility not its effectiveness in terms of  
outcome. Like rain making ceremonies, these displays are seldom  
followed by 'rain/profits', but that doesn't matter. Indeed it only  
takes a few spectacular 'downpours/successful brands' immediately  
following the ritual to convince everyone that the ritual works-- 
hardly scientific!. But, when it doesn't work, you can at least claim  
that you did your best. In other words 'success' is in the  
performance of the ritual, not in its outcome.

Apart from the ritual of display, there are others that are equally  
important. One of the most widely practised in our time, is to do  
with showing that one cares about something. For example, when  
governments want to show they care about road traffic deaths,  
smoking, drug abuse, domestic violence etc., they mount public  
'information' campaigns. The cumulative scientific evidence suggests  
that these campaigns 'work' in a functional sense about as often as  
rain making ceremonies are followed by rain, but that doesn't matter.  
Politicians, like tribal elders, faced with problems that they cannot  
solve can at least claim that they tried.

In those many areas of life over which we have no control, human  
communities have always resorted to ritual. This is important stuff!  
Moreover, there is a lot of skill involved in creating a good ritual.  
It is not surprising that the great designers/shaman are well paid.  
What has this go to do with design research? Nothing.

I would not go on to suggest from this that ritual is the only thing  
graphic designers do, but in so far as this is a major preoccupation  
and source of income for graphic designers it tends to obscure other  
activities and most importantly is why:
> Much research goes unused because practicing professionals simply  
> don't want to use it.

However, if you (Gunner and Ken) want to claim:
> [That] an enormous amount of design (including a large amount of  
> graphic design) ... just plain doesn't work.

And by 'work' you mean it in the sense of appropriate outcome, then  
you need evidence from research to back such a claim. Without that  
evidence, you are indulging in another type ritual which involves  
demonstrating that those outside our tribe are necessarily inferior  
to those inside our tribe.

David
-- 

blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au