Dear Frederick,
I think I see from where you are coming. Your wisdom is generated within your field. I can see the nature of the subject matter, the traditions of the field, and the most common believes shared by your professional community. Here I will join Don and repeat that design and research are terms that have multiple meanings depending on disciplinary and paradigmatic traditions. It seems to me that one this list we use them without specifying our own interpretations. I take responsibility for this as well.
I recently mentioned that I have professional stakes in this topic. Although I use material from architecture, I strongly believe that to some degree there are certain analogues in the other design areas.
For decades I have tried to convince architects that they have to research first (do programming) and act (design) later. I also made a caveat that the interrelationships among programming and design single acts/operations are more complex and intertwined. Different project situations might require different modes of interface and interaction between programming and design. In participatory design we make programming and design almost simultaneously. However, we still don't do the design before programming. And we do not rely on evaluation to make the design. We rely in a two-way simultaneous communication between designers and users.
"Design first and then evaluate the design" doesn't make much sense to me. It usually leads to "garbage in, garbage out." We can repeat that process many times without coming to a design solution that is on par with our potential. Developing design specifications by designing is not the best way. It is much better to start with specifications. Later after we evaluate the design, we can fine-tune the specifications and engage in a new round of design. I simplify the process, but this general scheme is more productive than playing a lottery with users. There is a lot to write about this, if we have the time, of course.
I am talking about an ideal process. I am aware that the reality is different. I understand that designers have to make sacrifices. Our goal as design researchers should be how to develop a methodology for following the logic of user research under very tight time and budget restrictions. Your method is one option to respond to such a goal. But we must confess, this methodology has its own limitations and limits of application. We also have to warn the clients about the risks they are taking by insisting on such a strategy. Acting first and then thinking might save time. Actually, we save time because we use our previous experience. We all know that it may not be correct or fully applicable to the new situation.
I have no problem if you propose your methodology as a way to cope with severe process restrictions. However, design researchers have to work also towards an ideal goal. Ideal situations might be impractical today, but gradually over time they might get their own flesh and blood. At least we can show the world what they should do. Because in the long run, the process restrictions are most often imposed by the clueless client. Clients want that the job is done by yesterday. Because they have poor planning. One of my old professors used to say that we don't need express mail, we need better planning (that was before the time of personal computers).
Again, at least on this discussion list, we need to support design research, its importance for informing design decision-making, and its role for saving resources compared to trial-and-error strategies.
Best,
Lubomir
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frederick van Amstel
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Act First, Do the Research Later
Hi Norman!
In your article you separe research from action. You tried to argue in favor
of combining them on the last sentence, but the damage was already done. You
just engrossed the notion that research is just a phase in the design
process, which is the real origin of the shortcomings you observed in your
consulting experience.
Maybe it's difficult for you to peirceve that design is a kind of research
in itself. Design generates knowledge about human values that makes its way
into the material culture. I'm not talking about the narrow "knowledge in
the world" cues you described in POET, but about any possible interpretation
of the world that could be shaped into a form.
Designers are suposed to be experts in "material hermeneutics". As you
mentioned in your article, they must be observing existing objects and
practices all the time to be prepared to use that knowledge when an
opportunity comes. But, observing is just one side of this ongoing process.
Designer's value comes out of interpretating those observations.
When designers need to debate with marketing managers and engineers about
some issue, a personal interpretation is not enough. They need to show off
how that was done, to put his interpretation under the scrutinity of others.
This is increasing as much as design is "stolen" from the creative genius
and put on the "strategic table".
However, if you consider that interpretation is not action, then lawyers do
nothing, which is an acceptable (and funny) POV. But if you really want to
help designers to be aware of their own work process, you must give up
traditional theory/practice, analysis/synthesis, think/act, say/do
dichotomies.
Arguing in favor of doing research first or after won't help. What I believe
that could help is systemathizing action-research approaches for current
industry demands.
I could point to some theoretical debates over aforementioned topics, but I
prefer to just give one good case-study:
Participatory Innovation, Buur and Matthews
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijim/12/1203/S1363919608001996.html
--
.
.{ Frederick van Amstel }.
http://fredvanamstel.com
Faber-Ludens Interaction Design Institute
http://www.faberludens.com
|