Don, Rosan and all,
Helpfully, Phil Agre used the term 'arbitrage' to describe the activity of
individuals bringing useful info from one discipline into another (as Don
described).
Most of the people who cause (usually helpful) disruptive discussions on
this list do it via arbitrage.
I'd suggest most disruptive designs are based on arbitrage.
Lack of arbitrage due to over specialised education and preciousness of
design culture is one of the reasons design education mainly results in
incremental change. Designers who learn in a single field tend to be
limited to produce designs based on the learning with that field. Arbitrage
based on high level expertise in other fields offers a bigger foundation to
insert new ideas into the creative milieu.
For a different current discussion on this list, arbitrage is one of the
often overlooked drivers of disruptive/radical innovation.
From personal experience, introducing arbitrage-gained insights into a field
characterised by fixed and only weakly reasoned beliefs about ideas (think
'design', 'creativity', 'intuition', 'design and emotion', 'culture',
'design thinking'....) results in resistance from the field rather than fast
development of the field.
This resistance, particularly from the 'Art and Design' side of design
often seems to be unhelpful. A more open position would likely lead to
faster development and the dropping of past traditions and cultures of
design that have slowed things to the point where improvement in design
outputs now mainly result from better software.
In the spirit of design creativity and radical disruptive innovation, how
about design journal editors having a ban for a year on all articles that
draw on, or are from, the traditional culture of design? That would provide
some incentive for arbitrage driven insights into the design literature.
Terry
===
Dr Terence Love FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Love Design and Research
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask]
www.love.com.au
===
-----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 Don
Norman
Sent: 22 March 2012 07:14
To: Dr Terence Love
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
|