well said

However one question springs to mind: do "non-designers" make better design
PhD students than research students with a design background? One would
assume that being taught by a design *practitioner* would better inform a
future design PhD student (re: having an understanding of 'intuition'
learned over years in design, etc). Or is this not an issue for design *
research*?

I am not stating one over the other but am curious to know what anyone else
thinks about this..

regards,

- Stefanie Di Russo

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'm far behind the threads on intuition and the one on education, but
> let my apply my standard rubric:
>
> * When intelligent people disagree, it often turns out that all are
> correct -- they are simply talking about different things, or perhaps
> the same thing but viewed from a very different perspective.*
>
> I think the argument about the role of intuition versus a systematic
> application of knowledge and principles within design is a case in
> point. Similarly for the argument about whether or not the PhD in
> design is harmful to the field. Let me discuss these briefly.
>
> Intuition versus Systematicity in Design
>
> Some day Roberto Verganti and i will finish our paper in which these
> ideas are better developed. Here is how roberto and I discuss this:
> Incremental and radical innovation are very different activities.
> Incremental is the home for the systematic application of known
> knowledge and principles. Radical is the home for "intuition". (Both
> are creative.)
>
> Aside: I dislike the word intuition. Intuition means that the person
> has no idea where the thought or action has come from. Intuition
> requires years of study and practice to acquire in any domain.
> However, in this case, it does apply. When someone says "I want to
> design this so that it is intuitive to use," I reply, "Oh, you mean
> you want the person to spend years learning how to use it."
>
>
> ================
> Radical innovation: rare. Where focussed "intuition" applies.
>
> Radical innovation is the most popular and the most talked about,
> especially when we talk of creativity. It is, however, the most rare.
> Roberto and i contend that the number of radical innovations within
> any field is very small. Each of us will only live through a small
> number of radical innovations in our lifetime.  Radical innovation is
> where the kind of intuition being discussed her shines. It does have
> several stages,  as outlined by Birger:
>
> * Preparation: deep thought about a problem coupled with a substantial
> period attempting to find a solution. This stage provides the
> internalization of much information, knowledge, and skills: this is
> called preparation.
> * Incubation and Illumination: A period of non-activity, letting the
> sub-conscious part of the mind process the information. The
> subconscious is a very powerful multi-processor that basically tries
> to find stable equilibria (minimum energy configurations). When it
> finds one, it signals the conscious mind.  The subconscious part is
> called incubation and the signaling is illumination.   These
> components were described a long time ago by the mathematician, Henri
> Poincare.
> * Verification: The subconscious is often wrong. As Poincare put it
> (in my words), it can find great novelty, but it doesn't know how to
> do arithmetic.  Most of the time, these insights are false.That is why
> the stage of verification is needed.
>
> In the world of real design and products, most of these wonderfully
> creative radical ideas go nowhere.   It takes more than a good idea to
> be successful.
>
> ================
> Incremental Innovation. The most common. Here is where systematic
> approaches apply.
>
> Almost everything we do as designers that have any real value in the
> world is an incremental enhancement of what already exists. Here is
> where the techniques called "Human-Centered Design" are relevant. here
> is where the approach outlined by Terry applies. This is also a
> creative process, but different than the radical one.
>
> ====
> Both radical and incremental innovation can be creative. But they are
> two very different activities.
>
> We don't know how to teach radical innovation. Hence, emphasis on
> various brainstorming methods (most of which either have no evidence
> to support them or have evidence showing they do no good. But they are
> a lot of fun, which is why we do them.)  The four stages of
> preparation, incubation, insight, and verification have a solid set of
> experimental evidence behind them, but they describe the process: they
> do not help us make sure it happens.
>
> Although i am a friend and a fan of Cikszentmihailyi, there is no
> evidence that his flow state actually leads to great creativity. The
> flow state occurs in passive reading or observation of plays,
> listening to music, movies, and active participation in computer
> games. it does occur in periods of deep thought. It might be a
> necessary state for creativity, especially preparation. But again, it
> is a description, not an explanation.
>
> ===
> On a related question; is the PhD harmful to design education?  The
> answer is Yes and No, depending upon what aspect of design education
> is being considered. One could make a case that they (sometimes) can
> be harmful for the training of practitioners. But No -- they are
> essential to advance the underlying knowledge base and deep
> understanding of design.
>
> Here is an example from my experience as an industry executive (I was
> a VP at Apple). We hired PhDs in my research group, but we were very
> suspicious of hiring PhDs in the product groups.  Practitioners are
> needed to train practitioners. PhDs are need to help advance the
> scholarly base of the filed, but most PhDs have very little practical
> knowledge: they want to be creative, they want to do deep thinking
> about principles and reasons. This is good for the field, but
> detrimental to the development and shipping of products.
>
> We need practioners to teach practice and PhDs to teach theory. Both
> are needed. It is wrong to question whether one is detrimental to
> Design when both are essential.
>
> Don Norman
>