As I understand the argument of the original piece,
it seems to be a very backhanded compliment to
(sociological) design research. It kind of says,
'hey, ethnographic research for design, you don't
deserve the glory, but there will always be a job
for you.'
On the one hand, it says that inventors of mechanisms
that later turn out to have become crucial to the way
some societies organize themselves mostly misunderstood
the social significance of what they were doing at the
time. On the other hand, those inventors nevertheless
continue to be feted as the originators of those later
social adoptions.
Because the article spends so much time discussing those
inventors and no time discussing examples of design
research finding needs, its overall effect is to re-
inforce a technologist-as-genius perspective. By com-
parison, the overall effect of the extensive literature
on the social construction of technology (Donald McKenzie,
Weibe Bijker, John Law, etc) is to insist that:
- there is no such thing as a breakthrough technology;
there are only emergent, convergent, multivalent
historical collectives (as Bruno [not-him-again] Latour
likes to call them)
- there is no such thing as THE car, THE Airplane, THE
Internet; a car has as much to do with Goodyear knocking
sulfurized rubber over on an open flame and so coming up
with vulcanization, which, together with the patent war
over pneumatic tires 30 years after his death, allowed
cars to be comfortable and safe enough to proliferate,
as it does with the invention of laws around speeding,
seat belts, drink driving, a texting-while-driving. It
would be nice to be able to sue Goodyear for tire blow-
outs if not global warming, but he would just run the
Aristotlean four causes defense.
There are moments in the piece that sound a bit like
Louis Kahn - a phonograph really wants to be playing
rock-and-roll, not making secretaries redundant. I
think what the piece wants to say, but its inventor
does not realize, is, we need to change education, and
spend more time talking about the diffusion of innova-
tions and less time talking about the accidental (or
bullying, in Edison's case) inventors; or, we need
designers who can better understand the social con-
sequences of what they are doing (a PhD anyone?).
Being more careful with arguments in this space is
really crucial right now as very-design-ignorant
Freakonomists go round on Fox News saying that
technologists are going to solve global warming
with some breakthrough invention, so tell social
change greenies and legislators to get lost.
Cameron
On 12/12/09 4:28 PM, "Donald Norman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> While it is true that Edison started selling phonographs within months
> of his invention, he claimed he had invented the paperless office, and
> it took decades (and a competitor) to discover the REAL "need" was THE
> reproduction of performances by famous musicians.
> I am talking about the invention of ENTIRELY NEW
> technologies.
> Inventing the phonograph yes: making music playback
> portable? No. Inventing the light bulb? Yes.
> It is only after someone (such as Sir Davy) has introduced the concept
> that others can PERFECT IT, that some might try it out, and that
> professional and amateur "design researchers" can sniff about to
> discover needs.
|