 |
 |
Hi Ken, Sometimes the hairs are not really what we think they are. My stepson once looking at his grandmother's hair proclaimed: "Now I understand: Hairs are born white and THEN become brown!" Loved your post, Cheers, Eduardo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 12:27 PM Subject: Splitting Hairs > Friends, > > One of the kinds of comment that occasionally goes round in design > research circles is the description of other peoples' research or the > conversations about it as splitting hairs. I'm going to challenge that to > suggest that we may not be splitting enough hairs. > > Now it's clear that we can cover the entire field on a single list with > only 1350 subscribers -- and if we could, we would not be able to cover > any range of issues in depth. Even the largest list in our field has far > fewer subscribers than the field as a whole. While Design Research News > has over 8,000 subscribers, and I estimate that it should be far larger to > cover the field. > > It matters because there is an inherent tension between size, breadth of > coverage, and depth. DRN comes once a month with broad coverage at a level > that makes it accessible to all readers. PhD-Design operates in > asynchronous but real time whenever anyone wishes to post. To exactly the > degree that we dig into an issue, it will seem deep and rich to some while > other criticize it as finicky hairsplitting. > > This leads me to two reflections. > > Reflection one concerns the PhD-Design list. From time to time, I get > notes about the list from people asking questions or making comments on a > thread. Some say that they love the list -- it gives them an opportunity > to sample the field, make connections, following a broader conversation > than they get at their own university or design firm. Even if their school > or firm is good, it can never be as broad as the community of 1,350 who > meet here. As I travel around, I find that people use the list in their > own research and teaching, they save informative and thoughtful notes to > share with students and colleagues, and they like the added perspective it > affords them. I don't actually deserve all the nice notes I get. The list > owners are Keith Russell and David Durling. They built the list after the > Ohio conference on doctoral education in design, and they keep it going. > Obviously, I am active here, and I work with them sometimes on > list-related projects. This included redirecting traffic to this list and > expanding the list after we held a highly successful on-line debate on > another list while getting ready for the La Clusaz conference on doctoral > education in design. The truth is that many of the subscribers here > deserve kudos for a list that has evolved and grown over the past decade. > > Many people post astonishing material here, generous collections of > resources, valuable ideas, and often useful reflections. If I were to > describe them all and thank everyone from whom I have learned something > new and useful, this would be a long post. What I like about this list > (debates included) is that I learn as much from people who challenge my > views as from those who agree with me, as well as learning from people who > amend and amplify my views by way of divergent agreements. > > And this leads to me second reflection on splitting hairs. > > Fields grow when lots of intelligent people gather to split hairs. I've > been immersed in two books on wealth and economic growth. One dates back > to a couple of ideas that Adam Smith first stated nearly two and a half > centuries ago. One idea has had much traction among economists, the idea > of the invisible hand. From this has grown the economics of diminishing > returns or constant returns in equilibrium. The other idea is stated in > Smith's model of the pin factory. Despite the fact that this is the first > and most widely known statement of the economic advantages of effective > organization design, economists have long overlooked the fact that this > also states the issue of increasing returns. This is a problem that > economists long had difficulties addressing, and it wasn't until the > twentieth century that people were even able to state it as a growth > problem of increasing returns. Even then, it was not until the last two > decades that people began finding ways to work with the problem, rendering > it tractable. > > Part of the process has involved -- for want of a better term -- > splitting hairs. This involves defining fields; locating the boundaries of > problems and problem issues; seeing where models created for other > problems afforded equivalent terms that could then be applied to the > problem of increasing returns; finding out why the problem yields more > answers with one set of labels than another. The field of economics makes > progress, slow progress, but progress, because several hundred thousand > extremely intelligent people have been willing to work patiently at the > many aspects of progressive science: splitting hairs, solving puzzles, > and -- sometimes -- > finding ways to shift position or paradigm for a new run at a problem that > did not yield answers to old approaches. > > Several years back, Pekka Korvenmaa and Jan Verwijnen organized a > conference in Helsinki where they invited Tore Kristensen to speak on > design research. Tore summarized the key aspects of fields with > progressive research programs. Such programs, he said, > > 1. Build a body of generalized knowledge. > 2. Improve problem solving capacity. > 3. Generalize knowledge into new areas. > 4. Identify value creation and cost effects. > 5. Explain differences in design strategies and their risks or benefits, > 6. Learn on the individual level. > 7. Learn on the collective learning. > 8. Develop meta-learning. > > (Kristensen 1999; Friedman 2001) > > At several points in this virtuous cycle, researchers in fields that make > progress take time to split hairs -- they compare models, they check their > models against empirical data, they clarify terms and definitions, they > see why one set of definitions may afford greater traction than another. > This is often slow, difficult work, and -- > rather like evolutionary cycles of punctuated equilibrium -- one may go > for years on a corner of a problem before learning enough to contribute a > few thoughts that break things open in dramatic ways for another part of > the field. > > We're just starting to get that kind of development in design research. > Our problem is that we still have too few people meeting to split hairs, > too few people willing to enroll in the long, developmental program that > leads to new ideas that breath life into potentially visionary scenarios. > > So I say good on you to anyone with the patience to work through a > problem, to follow a thread, contribute to a dialogue in a way that helps > to unpack and understand more than we know and understand today. > > Participating in a discussion list is not the same as writing a journal > article or a monograph -- but it should not be. It is an opportunity to > throw out a quick thought or even an elaborated idea at an asynchronous > seminar with some of the most interesting people in our field. Can we do > better? Probably. As we do, there will be many hairs to split. I do not > see this as a detrimental factor, but rather as one aspect of the slow > development every field goes through in the process of individual > learning, collective learning, and meta-learning. > > Warm wishes, > > Ken > > > References > > Friedman, Ken. 2001. "Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into > Practice." In Design and Technology Educational Research and Development: > The Emerging International Research Agenda. > E. W. L. Norman and P. H. Roberts, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of > Design and Technology, Loughborough University, 31-69. > > Kristensen, Tore. 1999. "Research on design in business." (Slides from > conference keynote presentation.) Useful and Critical: Research in > Design.Helsinki, Finland: University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH. > > -- > > Ken Friedman > Professor > Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language > Norwegian School of Management > Oslo > > Center for Design Research > Denmark's Design School > Copenhagen > > +47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM > +47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat > > email: [log in to unmask]