Hi Don,
As you know, conversation on the list can easily degenerate. I apologize if you have felt insulted, it was not my intention. Speaking of which, I rather felt insulted by Peter's remark about the quality of design literature. So let it be even. ....That is no need for you to insult Peter.
I have much to learn about empirical research, so no experimental data or controlled observations, but a few thoughts I can provide now, sorry I have no time to provide full arguments. I hope you will take this as a good gesture to make up...no hard feelings.
The way incremental and radical innovation are characterized in the paper resemble very much the pair terms 'redesign' and 'new design'. In new design, one takes a new metaphor or analogy. David Sless likes to call it 'letness'. Donald Schön describes it as reframe (and a group of design researchers have done empirical studies on that and published the results regularly in Design Studies). However, in redesign, one also has to reframe, so what is the difference between the two? I tend to think that the difference is not of kind but of degree. I like to relate the degree to the concept of undetermined or uncertain. I introduce four (not so robust concepts) to operationalize when a design situation is highly undetermined requiring new design, and when it is relatively determined requiring redesign (or the approach user study first, then design). These concepts are Technology, Goal, User(Context) and Design. When most of the aspects are determined/known at the beginning of a design situation, then redesign is warranted. When most of these, and especially Goal, are not determined/known, then a reframe, reconceptualization or a new metaphor is called for. Furthermore, the degree of undetermindness of a design situation is a decision made. In other words, that is nothing in the nature of a design situation that dictates redesign or new design. So it is in line with your view that someone just picks it up. How do we reframe? I like to use Peircean abduction and its associated system of signs to develop method for that. Others draw on analogy, as you must know. I have written a paper exploring the relation between abduction and analogy.
Is the new design necessarily better or more progressive than the old one? People who take an evolutionary perspective will say no. Redesign is epigenetic and new design is evolutionary. In this sense, design, even when it is new design, to borrow from Bruno Latour, is not revolutionary. I rather think the word 'radical' does not go so well with the nature of designing.
Meaning change. Cultural Studies is not small in design. Semiotics is also not small. Klaus likes Wittgenstein. Jonas likes Luhmann. Ranulph has his cybernetics. Buchanan has drawn on Dewey. I won't even know where to begin. But Cameron has started already, perhaps we can take his lead. Meaning equals value equals purpose. It is deeply human and must be handled with care.
Respectfully,
Rosan
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Norman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Donnerstag, 22. März 2012 00:14
Subject: Re: To Peter
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
... In my opinions, OUR most serious scholars and researchers in design are
> of two types: One trained in a field outside of design and has a
> strong grasp and thus appreciation of design literature,past and present. ....
I perhaps delude myself in thinking that i qualify as this first type of person. (Although as one of the early researchers in interaction design before it was called interaction design, maybe i am also trained in that component of design)
BUT, Rosan continued to say:
You know what I find funny about Vergarti writing for Design Issues? His
> idea of Design Driven Innovation is based on research on certain
> design practice and literature and consultation with design scholars
> and designers. Now, he turns around and tells us what he has learned from us.
> If the paper will be published in Design Issues. I will write a reply
> with references to design literature. Promise.
>
Um, I happen to be co-author of that paper. And my practical experience in design is to be around, to help, and to observe the shipping (and sometimes failure to ship) of multiple products in a number of different companies, some with professional graphic and industrial designers, some without. So it is my delusion that the paper is rather well-grounded in design practice. Not just design publications, design practice.
Moreover, the notion that someone learns from a field and then turns around and says what has been learned strikes me as good practice. After all, this someone (in this case we should say "these two people") have experience outside of design which means that they can take those learnings from design and elaborate and expand upon them in insightful new ways.
In my experience in several different fields, this is an important mechanism in bringing valuable new ideas to fields. It is quite often the outsider who comes in, talks to a lot of folks, and then is able to put together seminal new ideas. In fact, I have moved my area of research frequently as a deliberate way of being able to do this, to use the knowledge learned in one arena in new ways of characterizing the new discipline.
We should applaud the outsider who comes in, who devotes considerable time and effort to learn the existing frameworks and practices, and then provides a new framework for understanding. Even if we disagree with the new framework, by marshaling together the evidence to validate the disagreement, we will all have made progress. So applaud those newcomers, Verganti and Norman. Why insult them? If they are wrong, prove it.
And, gee, if the paper could be improved through the presence of references to design literature, wouldn't it be more friendly and informative to the field as a whole to provide them prior to publication rather than after?
Although I like to think I am fairly well read in the design literature, i would welcome further elucidation and understanding based upon experimental studies, controlled observations, and evidence. (Oops, those qualifications might be my downfall.)
Don
|