Rosan, my post was really just to say that (by now) these concepts should
have been old news to people on the list. I was referring to Verganti's book
because I was surprised that folks were challenging Don' basic premises
(again). Its fine that people do, but its getting old. He and Roberto have
been developing these notions for a few years now. We're part of the
community where these concepts get tested. You can do the same, but it gets
fatiguing when its always about defending one's work rather than trying out
the concepts with your colleagues.
Design Issues isn't about publishing breakthrough science or newsworthy
research from the labs either. Its often work based on strong precedent,
which this has. A scholarly development of concepts drawn from knowledge in
one domain (e.g. functional fixation or radical/incremental) into another
(e.g. meaning innovation) is not just a given and it's not about "marketing"
in the new domain. That's why the hill-climbing metaphor is perhaps needed.
But a deeper review of design literature may not show that much - the design
literature is scattered and not strongly empirical, what would you want to
cite in this case? The arguments are not "design oriented" in the
disciplinary sense. Most of the citations are to product innovation and
management literatures, where (oddly enough) their scholars may care more
about these relationships between innovation and meaning-making than
designers. After all Clay Christensen doesn't publish in the design
literature. But it seems like a good paper for Design Issues, because it
does challenge issues in design research and technological evolution.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosan Chow [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: are the ideas incrementally or radically new? RE: On the non-need
to cite every statement in a paper
For me, sending a draft paper to the list is a form of invitation for
feedbacks. It is in this spirit that I am writing this post.
Peter's post 'elaborates' on Norman and Verganti's paper which I have read.
After reading, I cannot help but wonder how new are the ideas presented? I
know I have advertised this before, but I wrote my dissertation in 2005 on
user study and I regret to say that I don't find any radically new insights
in the paper or in Peter's post. I honestly believe, although the ideas are
packaged now in different languages (or is this a lesser form of
'meaning-driven innovation'!?), many in design know about them either
theoretically or intuitively.
Since Verganti (in his book Design Driven Innovation) draws on Klaus
Krippendorf's design theory, I can only say that he has taken Klaus'
invention and turns it into an innovation marketable in the world of
business research and practice. This is no small achievement. But I think, a
more serious review of design literature would have strengthened the paper
for the readership of 'Design Issue'.
Best Regards,
Rosan
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Jones | Redesign [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Dienstag, 20. März 2012 18:20
Subject: Re: On the non-need to cite every statement in a paper
Don has argued his case for a few years now, in "our court" and in
conferences such as IIT's Design Research. I'm surprised at the extent to
which our colleagues continue to act amazed that paradigm entrenchment is
not the case in design and social sciences research. Let me add a pragmatic
view.
Picking apart Don's statements also shows a regretful lack of understanding
of Verganti's long-standing argument made in Design-Driven Innovation.
Verganti promotes increasing the variety of "interpreters" in an innovation
setting so that signals and trends from outside the immediate domain can
intervene. This sensitization process is not a typical social science-based
method.
As with any well-reasoned argument, nobody is stating that good exceptions
don't happen. Sometimes we get the right opportunity. But if rapid
ethnography, or even lead user innovation can "discover" next generation
breakthroughs from everyday human practices, there would not be any
disagreement. Social sciences based research requires we study a unit of
analysis related to currently performed activities. User behavior studies do
lead to incremental innovations and significant improvements in practice.
But these are not Bell Labs-level breakthroughs.
|