On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

... In my opinions, OUR most serious scholars and researchers in design are
> of two types: One trained in a field outside of design and has a strong
> grasp and thus appreciation of design literature,past and present. ....


I perhaps delude myself in thinking that i qualify as this first type of
person. (Although as one of the early researchers in interaction design
before it was called interaction design, maybe i am also trained in that
component of design)

BUT, Rosan continued to say:

You know what I find funny about Vergarti writing for Design Issues? His
> idea of Design Driven Innovation is based on research on certain design
> practice and literature and consultation with design scholars and
> designers. Now, he turns around and tells us what he has learned from us.
> If the paper will be published in Design Issues. I will write a reply with
> references to design literature. Promise.
>

Um, I happen to be co-author of that paper. And my practical experience in
design is to be around, to help, and to observe the shipping (and sometimes
failure to ship) of multiple products in a number of different companies,
some with professional graphic and industrial designers, some without.  So
it is my delusion that the paper is rather well-grounded in design
practice. Not just design publications, design practice.

Moreover, the notion that someone learns from a field and then turns around
and says what has been learned strikes me as good practice. After all, this
someone (in this case we should say "these two people") have experience
outside of design which means that they can take those learnings from
design and elaborate and expand upon them in insightful new ways.

In my experience in several different fields, this is an important
mechanism in bringing valuable new ideas to fields. It is quite often the
outsider who comes in, talks to a lot of folks, and then is able to put
together seminal new ideas. In fact, I have moved my area of research
frequently as a deliberate way of being able to do this, to use the
knowledge learned in one arena in new ways of characterizing the
new discipline.

We should applaud the outsider who comes in, who devotes considerable time
and effort to learn the existing frameworks and practices, and then
provides a new framework for understanding. Even if we disagree with the
new framework, by marshaling together the evidence to validate the
disagreement, we will all have made progress. So applaud those newcomers,
Verganti and Norman. Why insult them?  If they are wrong, prove it.

And, gee, if the paper could be improved through the presence of references
to design literature, wouldn't it be more friendly and informative to the
field as a whole to provide them prior to publication rather than after?
Although I like to think I am fairly well read in the design literature, i
would welcome further elucidation and understanding based upon experimental
studies, controlled observations, and evidence.  (Oops, those
qualifications might be my downfall.)

Don