 |
 |
Amanda, It is inappropriate to describe Jurgen’s question as you do. You criticize approaches to research that “seem to maintain their ‘claims to truth’ by treating all the problematic bits as externalities - they ‘decontextualize, dissociate, detach and disentangle’. This process is necessary to make anything into a marketable commodity.” Then you add, “Which is what Jurgen seemed to be asking for.” This is not what Jurgen was asking for. If you know Jurgen’s work – especially his work with Muhammad Yunus on design for social business – you know that Jurgen wrestles with serious problems in serious ways, and he does not make anything into a marketable commodity.” Jurgen is asking for a “comprehensive study to have a better grasp regarding the value of design in their current value chain.” This involves justifying investment when we spend money and resources. To do this, we cannot treat the problematic bits as externalities, and Jurgen doesn’t suggest anything of the sort. He’s asking how to understand the problematic bits. Designers often claim that we add economic value to products and services. Jurgen is asking how to measure this. Governments are asking the same question. The decisions they reach will affect funding for university-level design education. This is not an easy question, but it is an important question. Nothing in Jurgen’s comments suggested to me that he seeks to “decontextualize, dissociate, detach and disentangle.” He wants to answer a difficult and important question. You critique Jurgen Faust via Kyle Bagwell. Let’s start there. If you haven’t read Bagwell, you can’t argue that Bagwell seems to maintain a “ ‘claim to truth’ by treating all the problematic bits as externalities.” Whatever gave you that idea? Kyle Bagwell is Lucas Professor in Stanford University Department of Economics. His specialties are world trade and industrial organization. He is also an econometrician, working with mathematical models. Some models do fail to account for all aspects of the phenomena they model, but you’d have to see what Bagwell has to say before suggesting that he seems to “‘decontextualize, dissociate, detach and disentangle’.” You might read Bagwell before critiquing his method or his approach. You seem to have missed some serious debates on economics and economic research. Whatever Kyle Bagwell’s merits or flaws, this has nothing to do with Jurgen’s approach or the value of attempting to understand the economic impact of design. Perhaps I’ve missed something, but the logic of the argument as I read it is: 1) You propose adapting an abstract written for the economics of advertising by substitute the words “product design” for the word “advertising.” 2) You apparently draw conclusions about Kyle Bagwell’s approach without reading the article. 3) On the basis of an abstract written for an article you haven’t read, you suggest that economic models don’t work for economic analysis. Do recall that Jurgen is asking an economic question, and it’s a question that many of us would like answered. Economic analysis answers economic questions. Massey has a good library, so you can find the Handbook of Industrial Organization online to download Bagwell’s chapter. Here’s the doi: doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2003.10.071 You read Jennifer Mason’s Powerpoint slides online. Why not read Bagwell before reaching conclusions. Bagwell draws on history, social theory, cultural studies, and even design in his analysis. He’s read and made use of Mary Douglas, Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, and Edward Tufte, not to mention Karl Marx and Vance Packard. It’s a fascinating article. It’s odd to say that you prefer Jennifer Mason’s approach to Kyle Bagwell’s without reading Bagwell. Without claiming that Bagwell is using Mason’s methods, it is fair to say that he uses a multifaceted approach to understand a phenomenon with many facets. There isn’t a single econometric model in the article, and hardly any numbers beyond those an historian might use. This is an entertaining piece. It contains ideas that may be usefully applied to design, certainly to advertising and brand building. But just as history, it’s fun. When I was a kid, my parents used to say we ought to take a bite of something before we decide we don’t like it. Three aspects of your post bother me. First, you critique of something you don’t understand by comparing it to something you haven’t read. Second, the example you give is not as you describe it. Whether or not one can adapt Bagwell to Jurgen’s purpose – you can’t, really – Bagwell does not “‘decontextualize, dissociate, detach and disentangle’.” Bagwell’s purpose is not “to make anything into a marketable commodity,” but rather to examine aspects of advertising. Third, and most important, none of this has anything to do with Jurgen’s proposal. Now Jurgen does not need me to defend him and that is not my purpose. I do feel that we ought to defend the right of any list member to pose a responsible question, especially a question so vital to the future of our field. Since this question is vital for those of us who work at universities, it affects nearly everyone on this list. Another purpose of this post is to defend a fundamental principle of research. It generally helps to learn about a subject before offering an opinion. Ken Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia Amanda Bill wrote: —snip— I think that’s the whole point about economic analyses like Bagwell’s (though I admit I haven’t read that one). They seem to maintain their ‘claims to truth’ by treating all the problematic bits as externalities - they ‘decontextualize, dissociate, detach and disentangle’. This process is necessary to make anything into a marketable commodity. Which is what Jurgen seemed to be asking for. If it were up to me to design research about the impact of design in product development, I’d prefer something like Jennifer Mason’s ‘Facet’ approach, just posted on —snip—