Dear Rosan,

Thanks for coming back to this. I won't comment on the references (or any debate about them), but would like to pick up your point about sequencing.

I'm of the view that certain approaches to problems can be generative and responsible and others less so or not at all. When something is both generative and responsible, it does not need to prove A) that it is the only way or B) the best way. It is merely to say, "this works." It should invite improvement, not shy away from it. But in the meantime, off we go … This simple notion is often forgotten at academic conferences where people tend to problematize more than problem-solve. If something works, well, it works!

Now: When making the claim that something "works" it does beg the question "according to what?" We do need to be explicit about such things and what constitutes success and why.

When Lisa and I speak of design as following research in designing policy and practice, we are saying that this approach "works." That is all.  Not that it is "the way you should see everything."

We fully recognize that the learning process is always iterative and on-going, but one needs to model with the things on the table. That means, someone needs to put the stuff on the table. Research puts data (or the interpretive frameworks, etc) on the table for use in modeling, scenario building, prototyping, etc. This is the "raw stuff" we design with. Not clay or paper or metal.  

If we're going to model with socio-cultural data, we have to also remember why. The "why" for us is to assist in the crafting of local strategies for action. The process of crafting the strategies, formalizing them, then implementing them (by policy, and by law) is rather linear. The policy is enacted, someone yells "go" and the clock is running on getting a solution on the table.

Yes, we could say its ALL design but here we are treating design an imperialistic term that is trying to say, "everything, Everything, EVERYTHING is design!" I had this debate (without resolution) with Dick Buchanan at the Glen Cove conference. Sure, seen this way, everything is design.

Now what?

I guess "we're all designers" then, and then the world is only comprised of designers designing. Something of a Pyrrhic victory, that … I'm not sure I want to live there. (But there are people I might like to send there …)

Designing — as use the term — is more akin to "modeling" than "thinking." One models "with stuff." That means, you need the stuff first. If the stuff is socio-cultural knowledge, then research precedes the process. It may also support it and follow it, and it may go round and round, but it is not chicken and egg. First comes a strategic goal, then the knowledge, then the modelling, then the prototyping, etc.

A slightly unrelated thought: Breaking things down rather than pushing them ever upward can be helpful. And that requires more words. What is the relationship, for example, between design and strategy? I have some ideas on this, but its worth trotting out, isn't it? Design and decisionmaking? Same thing. Too few words (especially when those words are confusing) and we're lost.

Lastly: The relationship between cultural research and design is hardly exhausted. It has hardly started yet. 

Thanks for picking up on this.

Derek


_________________
Dr. Derek B. Miller
Director

The Policy Lab
321 Columbus Ave.
Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
Boston, MA 02116
United States of America

Phone
+1 617 440 4409
Twitter
@Policylabtweets
Web
www.thepolicylab.org 

This e-mail includes proprietary and confidential information belonging to The Policy Lab, Ltd. All rights reserved.

On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:36 PM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Derek, 
> 
> Thanks for your post. It is too bad that no one has picked it up. I agree with you, project like yours opens up new way to engage not only user study but also designers. The integration of cultural research and design has not been exhausted (although perhaps distracted) by the the form of 'design thinking' that appears on the webpage of a design school 30 times without saying what it is. 
> 
> Before jumping on the bandwagon of 'radical innovaiton', your work also raises the question (in me at least) whether an incremental improvement in the program of keeping and promoting peace is less significant than a 'radical innovation' in, let's say, designing watches. 
> 
> Finally, I have just read your article 'Trying it on for Size' in Design Issues and learned that you are interested in bringing design in to fill the gap between research and planning. This research-design-planning trio reminds me of the comparision that Wolfgang Jonas and I have done on other similiar triadic processes. 
> 
> Jonas, W., R. Chow, K. Bredies, and K. Vent. "Far Beyond Dualism in Methodology: An Integrative Design Research Medium 'Maps'." Paper presented at the 2010 DRS International Conference 'Design & Complexity', Montreal 2010.
> 
> We wrote: 
> 
> "There is a striking triadic pattern showing up: a genuine design-specific structure, albeit still in diverse terminologies, of the research process is emerging in various "sciences of the artificial" (disciplines dealing with the teleological / purposive transfer of an existing state into a preferred one), such as design (Jones 1970, Archer 1981, Nelson and Stolterman 2003, Jonas 2007), management (Weick 1969, Simon 1969, 1977), HCI (Fallman 2008).
> 
> Jones 1970	divergence	transformation	convergence
> Archer 1981	science	design	arts
> Simon 1977 / Weick 1969	intelligence	design	choice
> Nelson&Stolterman 2003	the true	the ideal	the real
> Jonas 2007	Analysis	Projection 	Synthesis
> Fallman 2008	Design Studies	Design Exploration	Design Practice
> 
> I would like to invite you to consider that although these three aspects are indispensable. There is no 'logically necessary' sequence between 'research' and 'design' (to use your preferred terms). Design can logically and practically be conducted before (cultural) research. Projection can and sometimes preferably come before analysis. 
> 
> Best regards,
> Rosan 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derek B. Miller [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Freitag, 17. Juni 2011 10:55
> Subject: The unimaginable user of a service
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I've been following the thread about research, and the (mostly) parallel conversation about user-centered design and innovation. I would like to share an orientation towards "user research" and the challenge of innovation that - if one is careful to avoid ladening these terms too heavily - might add a dimension to this discussion. This post is a bit long, but I have tried to write it clearly.
> 
> At the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, and now at The Policy Lab, we design policy and practice in culturally-unfamilar environments. We do this on matters that largely involve violence, and so the consequences of insufficient analysis, or insufficient design, either fail to reduce violence or could even exacerbate it. The seriousness of this endeavor is in no way exclusive nor do we claim any form of exceptionalism for this kind of design. But I would suggest that this sort of application for design is novel. (See "Designing Programmes in Contexts of Peace and Security, SEE Bulletin 4: http://www.seeproject.org/docs/SEE%20Bulletin%20Issue%204%20-%20October%202010(1).pdf) 
> 
> The work of the Security Needs Assessment Protocol (SNAP) project was primarily concerned with two matters: A) the generation of local knowledge relevant to the design of operational programmes (think "services") by the UN, and B) the application of that knowledge into the design process itself. It was our contention that designs for local action needed to be reposed on an understanding of local social systems to be viable and legtimate. It was our further contention that knowledge does not apply itself. And so a process of design was necessary to avoid the error of rushing from "problem to planning."
> 
> The research we conducted was empirical. That is, both the descriptive findings (i.e. "this is here" or "I did not see this here") and the interpretive moves ("I believe this means X" or "X implies Y") are both falsifiable. That is, one can prove them wrong, and the means of doing so is not opaque. ("In fact, this is NOT here", or "You miscoded the data, because you DID see this here, etc.).
> 
> The research was also highly cooperative with national actors in the countries where the studies were conducted. That is, we cooperated with the University of Ghana, Tribuvan and Kathmandu and Purbanchal in Nepal (etc.) It was also highly cooperative with local actors upon learning who was appropriate to learn from when we tried to understand a particular social practice ("court musicians and smock makers in Ghana, to learn about "protection" and its relationship to security, etc.). We published on matters of research ethics in conflict zones (Miller and Scollon in http://www.brill.nl/researching-violence-africa), and generating situated theory for local action (in the Journal for Peacebuilding and Development, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/jpd/jpd/2010/00000005/00000002/art00005). Most of our work can be found in the UN website for SNAP (http://www.unidir.org/bdd/fiche-activite.php?ref_activite=337) 
> 
> It was necessary not to romantize the local. We are all "local" in some way. The "sub-altern" (a term we do not use) may just as well be the perpetrators of the genocide in Rwanda. A lack of power does not raise one's moral standing. In fact, it may be just as well. 
> 
> We were encouraged by "design thinking." But it broke down and revealed itself as merely a metaphor when we realized that "empathy" was meant to stand in for "method" in the study of people for whom we could not imagine. We cannot imagine what it means to be a former member of the RUF in Sierra Leone who chopped off BOTH hands of toddlers. We cannot imagine the "needs" of those who blow up people at a market, and then when the ambulances arrive and people rush to help, set off the bigger bombs as has happened literally hundreds of times in Iraq. And yet, these people may be the "users" of a "disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration" (DDR) programme that will be provided by the UN, and needs to be designed, and needs to work. So far, this has not generally been the case, which is why both UNDIR and The Policy Lab are now working closely with 14 UN agencies to imagine new "best process" approaches to the design of situated, local action.
> 
> Research - not empathy - is needed here to understand the practices and meanings of social actions that we cannot imagine in order to ground our crafting of viable and legitimate and effective solutions, be it "user centered" or "human centered" or whatever. 
> 
> Innovation - in our view in this very particular kind of problematic - is partly the product of A) falsifying our own premises and presumptions, B) discovering local strategies of social action that were invisible or inaudible to us before the inquiry (see the new Center for Local Strategies Research at the University of Washington), and C) using local knowledge as the "building blocks" for the design (or co-design) of new sets of local actions that were, until the cooperative research, unimaginable (The Policy Lab and live|work are taking a lead here).
> 
> Much of this is familiar to engineers and designers. No claim towards "radical innovation" is being claimed. But the comparative and social elements, combined with the institutional and political settings and coupled with the the moral implications opens a new territory for designers.
> 
> The care we give to the generation of new knowledge and the claims we make have implications. I believe that we have a burden of responsibility to learn the nature of things in order to act properly towards them. That is not a mechanical process, but rather a commitment to determine what's appropriate to learn, what is appropriate to value, and how it is appropriate to act. These are worthy questions. And the answers, I think, are neither static nor ultimately mutable if certain core values are held.
> 
> I enjoy following this forum and respect, very much, the kinds of questions often entertained here.
> 
> With best wishes,
> 
> Derek Miller
> 
> _________________
> Dr. Derek B. Miller
> Director
> 
> The Policy Lab
> 321 Columbus Ave.
> Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House Boston, MA 02116 United States of America
> 
> Phone
> +1 617 440 4409
> Twitter
> @Policylabtweets
> Web
> www.thepolicylab.org 
> 
> This e-mail includes proprietary and confidential information belonging to The Policy Lab, Ltd. All rights reserved.
> 
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:23 AM, Rosan Chow wrote:
> 
>> Hallo,
>> 
>> User study has been inflated and at the same time reduced since, I would like to suggest, 1985 when this humble but significant aspect of design practice was crowned 'User Centered Design' by Don Norman et al. 
>> 
>> Ever since, user study has been marketed in different fancy terms and blown up more and more in its claim to drive innovation. The bubble is bursting. I have myself lent critique to this inflation and limited its value back to what it is really worth. 
>> 
>> Chow, R., and W. Jonas. "Case Transfer: A Design Approach by Artefacts and Projection." Design Issues 26, no. 4 (2010): 9-19.
>> 
>> Chow, Rosan. "For User Study. The Implication of Design." Dissertation, University of Arts Braunschweig, 2005.
>> http://deposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=978483235&dok_var=d1&dok_ext
>> =pdf&filename=978483235.pdf
>> 
>> The sadder part of the story, however, is that user study is reduced in its end to merely innovation. Here more serious works ought to be done to rediscover the social and ethical ideals and posture that once accompained it. Our (older) collegues on the list (Pelle Ehn, David Sless, Nigel Cross, Harold Nelson, Klaus Krippendorf...) certainly have more to tell. 
>> 
>> Don't forget user study, rather re-awake to face up the challenging ends to which it once aimed. 
>> 
>> All the best,
>> Rosan
>> 
>> Rosan Chow, Ph.D.
>> Research Scientist
>> 
>> Design Research Lab
>> Deutsche Telekom Laboratories
>> UdK Berlin
>> 
>> Einsteinufer 43, 10587 Berlin,Germany
>> 
>> Office +49 (30) 8353-58357
>> Mobile +49 (160) 90-96-6133
>> Fax +49 (30) 8353-58609
>> 
>> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> http://www.design-research-lab.org
>> http://www.telekom.de/laboratories
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Don Norman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Samstag, 11. Juni 2011 00:46
>> 
>> 
>> I am amused by Francesa's comment: "you might be interested in considering the position of those who say that in order to design successful products one should "forget user-centered design"!
>> The main book is "Design-Driven Innovation" by Roberto Verganti."
>> 
>> Roberto and I are so much on the same wavelength here that we are jointly giving a keynote at the "Designing Pleasurable products"confence in two weeks in Milan.
>> http://www.dppi11.polimi.it/
>> 
>> 
>> Basically, we say that UCD and HCD (which we consider to be the same things) are great for incremental innovation but useless for radical innovation (what Roberto calls "meaning change").  We use Pasteur's quadrant to argue that there are four kinds of innovation.  And the most dramatic come from anywhere, certainly NOT from user studies.
>> 
>> I gave my version at IASDR and at an IIT-ID conference. The Design Research
>> community hates it.    Technology first, i argue. needs last.  See
>> 
>> http://jnd.org/dn.mss/technology_first_needs_last.html
>> You might look at my paper entitled "Human-Centered Design Considered harmful" as well as the second URL I posted above.
>> http://jnd.org/dn.mss/human-centered_design_considered_harmful.html
>> http://jnd.org/dn.mss/hcd_harmful_a_clarification.html