Dear Birger,

I find it amusing (and a bit suprised at the same time) to see how you have responded to some of my quotes out of context. If things could be summed up in few sentences, I wouldn’t need to write a 100.000 words book, right? And to be honest, this is the first time that I hear that starting a design process with a question is something which is ‘outdated and archaic’. Please enlighten me to a modern alternative to asking a question. 
Anyway… 

I have enough professional and academic experience in design to understand that there is not a one single way at looking at design. This is something I also mention in the book. There are many approaches, schools of thought, and philosophies when it comes to looking at design. All of us subscribe to one or another way of thinking about design and this is perfectly normal. People should be able to choose what they will believe in. I started studying design in a classical European art schools and art academies where my studies were grounded in Arts & Crafts. For years this was the only way I was thinking about design. But over time (and through practice) I learned that there is more to design and that design can be a part of the ‘big picture’. If you would have worked as a consultant in the government or corporate sector like I have, then you wouldn’t be so puzzled by what does it mean presenting ‘evidence’ that your design will work, or at least that we are taking a calculated risk by moving forward with the design. 

You mentioned wicked problems. Whether we can resolve wicked problems or not is irrelevant. Many of us are already tasked with resolving wicked problems. What matters is how we approach these problems. Research-driven design provides a level of accountability and responsibility. You can’t go and say to government officials or to a boardroom full of executives and investors - Trust me I’m a designer. You need to build your argument based on relevant data and information. Now, this way of working is not necessary in many other situations and as a designer you can often get away with not working in such a rigorous way. And this way of working is not for everyone. In fact, many people sign up to study design in order to do exactly the opposite of this. (Depending on the philosophy of the school.) And that’s fine. I am not saying that this is the only way that people should think about design. But, for some people, this is the right way of approaching design. Many contemporary, cutting-edge design consultancies and corporate in-house teams already work in this way. Many traditional design studios don’t. They both produce very different type of work. The same way of working doesn’t apply to all. 

And as an avid proponent of evidence-based design, I have tried explaining this further in my book. And no, I am not trying to introduce some new radical thinking about design in the book. This is just a textbook on research for designers. It is meant to introduce existing research practices to a new generation of designers.

Happy New Year!

Gjoko


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------