I've followed the discussion initiated by Victor Margolin with interest.
Here are some quick opinions.
Design is an incredibly complex (complicated) topic, with each of the many
parts requiring very different skills, approaches, techniques, and
therefore, theories.
Some parts are much easier to benefit from theory (or to even have theory)
than others.
I've taken an easy route: focusing upon psychological principles -- already
tested in the peer-reviewed debates in that field -- and applied them to
design. Sometimes the application required stretching what was known (which
is why I love applied fields -- they teach us about the limits of our
theories and push he theorists to do better). But all my work has attempted
to have a firm grounding in the experimental research literature of
cognitive and psychological sciences.t
Other areas of design are critically important, and although I would like
to contribute to them, I don't know how. Many still depend upon the skill
and insights of the individual workers (or teams), and perhaps that is
right and proper and will always remain so.
Citations.
I have been strongly influenced by my readings of many designers, but I
seldom credit them in my publications. Why? Because in science, we credit
the immediate sources relevant to the statements being made. So, for
example, Victor Papanek was perhaps the first designer I ever read, and he
had a great influence on me. Design of Everyday Thongs was patterned (in my
mind) after his writings. But I never cited him -- my work was quite
different, so there was no opportunity.
Herb Simon was a friend and greatly influenced me. I don't think I ever
cited him in my design works, although I have cited him in my psychological
studies. Same with George Miller -- a strong influence, but never cited.
Donald Schon's reflective practitioner is important, but only in my growth
and understanding, not for any of the particular publications of mine, so
he is never cited. Etc.
Lack of citation does not mean lack of influence. The small influences are
easy to cite: (S. S. Stevens did pioneering work in the measurement of
"loudness." I cite him. The big, overarching influences are difficult to
cite. Schon did pioneering studies of design teaching and practice: his
influence was large, but never specific enough on anything I have written
to warrant citation.
Design theory is hard. There aren't very many entry points.
There are many theorists i respect who are working in design. But it is
perhaps too early to build a substantive structure because we must all
cover so much ground. When we get a good ground coverage, then we can start
to build upon it.
I am very pleased with the people who have extended -- and often,
challenged -- my own work. Challenges are good, and as a result of some of
them, I have modified my views. But it is the rare area of design that
affords such constructive interaction.
I do not blame the design practitioners: I blame the area covered by
design. The modern approach to design is still new, especially its home in
research-based universities and the establishment of the PhD in design.
This movement is less than 100 years old, and the required breadth so
large, that it is not surprising that so little has been done.
So take some pride in the lack of substantive growth: it is a reflection of
the fact that we have chosen a very complex and difficult filed to work in.
That's good: all worthy problems are difficult.
Don
--
Don Norman
Nielsen Norman Group, IDEO Fellow
[log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/
Book: "Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded<http://amzn.to/ZOMyys>"
(DOET2). Pub date: November 2013
Course: Udacity On-Line course based on
DOET2<https://www.udacity.com/course/design101> (free).
Nov 2013.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|