 |
 |
Changing the email subject line because Google mail lumps all email with the same subject line together, making it really difficult when there are 70 messages in the thread. So every so often it is useful to change the subject line. I really think that there is a research-practice gap here. Most designers are practitioners. The PhD is a research degree. Practitioners often have no research tradition. Much of this debate is useful and interesting, but also revealing of the great gap between what some of us think is research and useful knowledge and what others think. This is not just the practitioner-researcher gap. It is also the gap between the scientifically trained researcher and the ones trained in the art/architectural community, where much of the research is history and criticism. (I am not trying to say that one form is better than the other: I am pointing out that they have very different goals, aims, and methods.) see my two papers: http://jnd.org/dn.mss/the_research-practice_gap_1.html http://jnd.org/dn.mss/talk_research_practice_gap_2_kinds_of_innovation_1.html (Personally, if there is no generalizable knowledge from design, then design is an art and belongs in the craft schools. Also personally, that notion is silly. ) -- I am amused by Francesa's comment: "you might be interested in considering the position of those who say that in order to design successful products one should "forget user-centered design"! The main book is "Design-Driven Innovation" by Roberto Verganti." Roberto and I are so much on the same wavelength here that we are jointly giving a keynote at the "Designing Pleasurable products"confence in two weeks in Milan. http://www.dppi11.polimi.it/ Basically, we say that UCD and HCD (which we consider to be the same things) are great for incremental innovation but useless for radical innovation (what Roberto calls "meaning change"). We use Pasteur's quadrant to argue that there are four kinds of innovation. And the most dramatic come from anywhere, certainly NOT from user studies. I gave my version at IASDR and at an IIT-ID conference. The Design Research community hates it. Technology first, i argue. needs last. See http://jnd.org/dn.mss/technology_first_needs_last.html You might look at my paper entitled "Human-Centered Design Considered harmful" as well as the second URL I posted above. http://jnd.org/dn.mss/human-centered_design_considered_harmful.html http://jnd.org/dn.mss/hcd_harmful_a_clarification.html -- Have fun people. Don Don Norman *Nielsen Norman Group *[log in to unmask] www.jnd.org http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/ Latest book: "Living with Complexity <http://www.jnd.org/books.html#608>" KAIST (Daejeon, S. Korea). IDEO Fellow. On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Francesa Zampollo <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > Dear Stefanie, > you might be interested in considering the position of those who say that > in order to design successful products one should "forget user-centered > design"! > The main book is "Design-Driven Innovation" by Roberto Verganti. > > You might also find interesting Sander's notion of Postdesign. > > good luck with your research! > (from a fellow struggler phd student...) > > Kind regards > Francesca >