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—