Indeed Mattias, I agree with the distinction and purposes. We essentially do
the same thing, as a design research firm. What I'm trying to point out is
that in practice, in North America at least, many design firms have adopted
the language of human-centricity but do not have the capacity for performing
the social research necessary to ground their narratives in evidence. Take a
close look at the briefs and presentations from even major design firms -
very often their research basis for design proposals is very thin. 

The reliance on personas and scenarios - drawn from methodology readily
available to all - can also obviate the need for more research. The
narratives assembled in such a compelling form can be used to warrant
service and artifact design decisions that are based more on internal
ideation and insights, but not necessarily supported by the evidence of
human use. Good field research is expensive and time consuming. It is also
done on the cheap, if at all, in many projects where the narrative
presentation then overcomes, if not exactly replaces, the lack of data. In
other words, it is false value to win the client over with a smashing
graphically compelling series of narratives based on thin evidence that the
right problem has been addressed in the first place.

Very few design firms are organized to circulate their lead designers
between the roles of field research, analysis, concept and product design.
We have deeply specialized over the last decade. In so doing some practices
have found it more rewarding and efficient to lead with narrative as design
rationale. Some firms integrate user experience research well. Others (and
my firm is based on this) formulate design proposals from a basis of deep
understanding of an activity system and human performance in that system. As
you might imagine, this is not necessary when redesigning ecommerce
websites, but is essential in healthcare informatics, for example. And yes,
the narratives are co-developed later with clients, using the field research
base as warrant, inspiration and guidance.

Best, Peter

Peter H. Jones, Ph.D. 

Visiting Scholar, University of Toronto
Graduate Faculty, Ontario College of Art and Design
Founder, Redesign Research
http://designdialogues.com   


-----Original Message-----
From: Mattias Arvola [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On design - again?

Peter,

a compelling narrative is a means for expression that serves the purpose of
engaging 
designers and other stakeholders and creating sympathy or empathy. 

Interviews are a means for gathering empirical material. 

They simply don't service the same purposes. We (the interaction- and
service design 
research group at Linköping University) has for a long time used compelling
narratives to 
communicate research data, for instance communicating a perceived problem to
solve. 
This also means that you get a problem statement that has the same form as a
narrative 
that depicts a desirable future, and this means that you can place them side
by side for 
comparison and judgement.

So, if people mix up interviews and compelling narratives, someone in the
educational 
system has failed. The two are not of the same kind.

Best regards,
// Mattias
--
Mattias Arvola, Ph.D. 
Sr. lecturer in Interaction Design. 
Linköping University and Södertörn University. 
www.arvola.se 



Peter Jones wrote:

>Take the practice of user experience, which has become less driven by field
>and human research and more driven by methodology. If a compelling
narrative
>about users can replace interviews with actual people, we start to lose the
>basis of evidence for designing decisions.
>