Jose Luis Casamayor asks:
-----------------------
- How would you define a new physical artefact that perform a new function
that can solve a current crucial problem, and that has for that purpose had
to develop new knowledge? It would be good practice, research, etc.?
- This question is related with Robbie's question (what i think he meant in
his question). If one practitioner and one 'researcher' present their
'research' outcomes, namely a paper and a physical artefact, and both are
presented to an academic peer review (which is the one that counts for
academic/research purposes) which one would be considered or they would be
considered equally?
-----------
My answer – and the answer of academic reviewers in the sciences – would be
very clear. But perhaps I can start with an example from the sciences. If X
does a brilliant experiment which required development of new procedures and
instruments, it would count for nothing until:
The experimental results were written up, explained, and the implications
clearly spelled out
AND
The publication was approved for publication in a high-quality peer-review
journal.
Finally, although the word would spread, it would initially be considered
only as a “tantalizing:” possibility until others had replicated and
supported the findings.
(There are some exceptions to the need to wait to pass through peer-review –
well established researchers could informally distribute the paper and also
present the findings, interpretations, and implications in talks. Even so,
the scientific community would wait for peer-review.)
So, I say the same for this “new physical artefact that perform a new
function that can solve a current crucial problem, and that has for that
purpose had to develop new knowledge.”
Until that new knowledge was clearly spelled out, explained, and the
implications made clear it would not be a contribution. Moreover, it would
not be a true enhancement of our understanding until others had replicated
and supported the findings.
Does that clarify this?
Look guys, doing brilliant, wonderful designs is really neat. But it does
not constitute a body of knowledge. The knowledge has to be the refinement
of ideas into a generalizable form – which means publication. Moreover, it
is not a solid contribution until others have replicated and built upon it,
thus confirming both its validity and it utility.
So, if an academic produces a solid research paper and a practicitioner
produces a marvelous artifact, in the academic circles, only the academic
would get recognition and be rewarded. Of course the practitioner might get
acknowledged by other practitioners. Indeed, the artifact might even make
the practitioner rich.
The different fields have different goals, different standards of judgment,
and different reward systems. One isn’t better than the other – they are
just different.
Don Norman
Nielsen Norman Group
Breed Professor of Design, Northwestern University
Visiting Distinguished Professor. KAIST, Daejeon, Korea
[log in to unmask]
www.jnd.org/
|