NextD Journal I ReRethinking Design Conversation 13
Science in the Making
(from the design side) research driven by inspiration. Both are crucial to innovation in the front-end of the design process. In addition, triangulation (the use of multiple simultaneous research methods to reveal different perspectives on a given domain) is becoming much more common. This is in contrast to the “old days” when researchers would rather argue about which method or tool was best. I am also excited by the imminent collapse of the traditional design disciplines. I clearly see this collapse and realignment coming, but I am afraid that it may be some time before it is acted upon in the universities. This change is one reason I am becoming more active now on the academic front. I agree with NextD about the need for change. I don’t know what the realignment will look like, however. There is one new path that I am still waiting to see happen. That is the idea of truly human-centered designing. I don’t believe that you can be truly human-centered until you invite the ultimate “end-user” into the process of designing with you. So much of what is talked about today under the name of co-designing or human-centered innovation is still based on the expert-driven model. Informed ethnography is just not enough to support human-centered innovation. Participatory design practices together with an attitude adjustment are needed. Experts design for people. In the future we will be designing and innovating with people, not just for them. I find that it is often difficult for people of my generation (i.e., Boomers) to understand this. The new and the next generations of designers grasp it much more quickly.
3 GK VanPatter: Understood. I can see several sticks of dynamite here, so let’s be brave and try to work with that for a few minutes. You know we are always looking for the story behind the story. Your comments above regarding the “imminent collapse and realignment of the traditional design disciplines” and the slow response from design education institutions leads to some very difficult questions that no one seems to be asking. Over the years the design education community built its own style of discourse that is still evident today in various places, including Design Issues magazine, the PhD Design List and elsewhere. For numerous years these forums were thought to represent best practice design education discourse. What is going on there from your perspective? Is this the emperors fiddling while Rome burns? The emperor’s new clothes? Or is this best practice discourse? How is it that design education has missed this massive change underway in the marketplace, but still thinks of itself and likes to position itself as leading design practice? Liz Sanders: Let me qualify my response by first describing my perspective: • • •
I am primarily a practitioner, so I value usefulness, relevance, and a future pointof-view in design discourse. I don’t subscribe to or regularly read Design Issues. I lurk on the PhD Design list when I have time.
My response is this: Practitioners are leading design practice. Design educators are leading design discourse. Of course, there are exceptions, but this is how it feels from where I sit. It would be great if there were more interaction between the two camps. So is the current design discourse useful or relevant? Yes, sometimes. I find that it Page 3 of 16