Hi, Amanda,

Hmmmmmmmm….. 

You write that your view is that “Entwistle is applying Callon’s
ideas to the research of fashion as a cultural economic phenomenon. I
would argue that the contribution that design makes to products and
services within the firm may be similarly approached. I don’t believe
that domains of market, design and firm are as easily separated as you
suggest.”

I’m not suggesting that these can easily be separated. I’m arguing
that one must understand the different kinds of research that one
requires for different levels and units of analysis. The domains of
market, design, and firm are all related one to the other. The levels of
units and analysis determine what we can learn.

Unless I’m wrong, Entwistle’s approach will not answer Jurgen’s
questions.

You conclude, “But I suspect we may never agree on this!”

You are right that we will not agree on this, but there is a way to
find out whether I am mistaken in the belief that this approach will not
yield the answers Jurgen requests. This is for you to apply
Entwistle’s method to the question Jurgen asked.

Relatively few people in the design field have the economic skills to
do empirical research on these kinds of economic questions. None of
those who are known to me would be willing to spend time applying
Callon’s approach or Entwistle’s to the question of how much value
design adds to specific goods and services at the firm level. While you
can’t separate firms from the markets in which they participate,
determining the value that design adds to a product requires us to
analyze the value chain of a specific product. This begins with
microeconomic analysis. (The questions Terry raised were quite valid –
my suggestion was a proxy, and as I stated, only inferential.)

If you argue that we need empirical research using a specific research
approach, then the challenge is to ask whether you are willing to do the
work to demonstrate that this research approach will yield results.
That’s how Barry Marshall and Robin Warren won the 2005 Nobel Prize in
Physiology or Medicine. At a time when most authorities believed that
stress caused peptic ulcers, Warren and Marshall argued that a specific
kind of bacteria caused ulcers. The story of their prize and the work
they did to earn it constitutes exemplary empirical research –
including Marshall’s willingness to put his theories to the test by
subjecting himself to the bacteria. 

No one is likely to win the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that design
adds value to products and services, but answering this question would
win a great deal of esteem in the fields of design, design management,
strategic design, innovation studies, organization theory, and
economics. Given the importance and difficulty of the question,
answering it in a conclusive way rather than a speculative way would
bring an honorary doctorate or two and doubtless the New Zealand Order
of Merit. 

This is a serious question. A conclusive answer would affect trillions
of dollars in management decisions. Many people in governments,
businesses, industries, and universities would like to see it answered.


Choosing an appropriate method is one step in finding an answer: If
you’re genuinely prepared to argue that it is possible to answer this
question, I’d like to see a real argument. That requires a concrete
outline of how one would use Entwistle’s method to answer the question
and solve problem. This would require a carefully delineated structure
with steps toward a solution. The next step, of course, would be to do
the empirical research and solve the problem.

It’s one thing to say that we may never agree. It’s another to
demonstrate to me that this method works in answering this question. 

If you do, I’ll change my mind.

Yours,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia