Forms of inquiry in design and research

Lately I have been in many discussions with PhD students about how to set up research and also how to design a design process and sometimes even how to design a research process that has strong design qualities. The problem they face is that they see their work as research but not as 'pure' scientific research and this makes them uneasy and unsure of how to make good choices.

When I engage in these discussions I often realize that the major problem is that it is not clear what the purpose of the inquiry is and consequently what the 'measure-of-success' would be. As long as the purpose and measure of success is not made clear, the choice of inquiry approach becomes extremely complex and frustrating.

In our book "The Design Way" we discuss this issue in many places, but one that helps me a lot can be found in the chapter "The Ultimate Particular". Here we discuss three forms or designs of inquiry and action that humans can engage in. We suggest "... that design, as presented in this book, is based on a compound form of inquiry, composed of true, ideal, and real approaches to gaining knowledge." It is possible to also make the case that research and science also in most cases consists of compound forms of these three. There is not simple and direct mapping between them even though it may be tempting to assume that.

I will not here go into any detail about this, just copy two of the schemas we use in the chapter to show what kind of considerations are involved when anyone makes a decision on how to design a particular form of inquiry.

In Figure 1.4 (below) we present a schema that lays out several aspects of inquiry and action and how they can be understood for each of the three forms of inquiry, that is, the real, the true and the ideal. This is a quite rich schema with dense concepts, but reading each line carefully gives insights about how different the three are, but also where they are somewhat overlapping. So, in making choices about what form of inquiry to choose in your research or design, a schema like this may help since it not only explains but also provides with concepts that can guide the understanding of purpose and measure of success. For instance, you can examine what your intention is, what you motivation is, what your preferred form of understanding is, etc. Given any choice also tells you what the measure fo success should be. So, if you are truly looking for inquiry for understanding (under 'fundamentals') that can lead to 'enlightenment' of some kind, it is not appropriate to see 'facts' to be part of the measure of success.

However, choosing a research approach or a design approach is not a simple question of deciding which 'design of inquiry and action' to "use". The richness and specifics of the particular situation, your purpose and intention leads to complex considerations regarding how all three forms can inform and enrich an inquiry. This is shown in Figure 1.5 below.

Design or research is never a question of finding out what the correct or best existing approach is, instead it is a complex process of judgment that weighs all aspects in an attempt to reach an approach that makes sense, that is guided by intention, that has a purpose and is based on a clear understanding of what the measure of success is.

This may be a fairly abstract and theoretical approach to the question of how to choose an approach for inquiry in design or research, but it does provide some support and it can lead to more informed choices.

Marcuse and Morozov: 'One-dimensionality' and 'Technological Solutionism'

Evgeny Morozov is an author who just published his new book "To Save Everything-- The Folly of Technological Solutionism". Morozov is highly opinionated, he pushes arguments to the extreme, and he is probably to many both offensive and plainly 'loud'. However, he makes the case that some of the questions he raises are not raised by anyone today. The longterm consequences of the technologically based 'solutions' that we develop are never examined and discussed in the way they deserve according to Morozov. He makes the argument that we are on a dangerous track when we believe that by quantifying, tracking, capturing, gamifying human behavior we can also solve our societal problems. However, the most serious problem is not that we are actually already doing this, but that there seems to be an overwhelming consensus that this is not really problematic.

I am drawn to Morozov's book partly because I am working on a chapter about the notion of the 'one-dimensional man' by Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse was a philosopher and one of the founders of critical theory, and a serious critique of the modern Western society. The notion of the 'one-dimensional man' refers to the situation when society provides everyone (or a majority) with all that is needed and desired. All critique is absorbed by the existing structure, new radical cultural movements become fashionable and harmless, and after some time, no one can even imagine a different society (except for small variations). We are all seeing everything in the same way, we are becoming 'one-dimensional'.

So, two extraordinary and different thinkers can be read as having something in common, that is, a belief that our society is shaping us to not see and understand what is good for us. We have designed a 'system' that makes us products of our own ignorance.

Read the two books, but please keep an open mind, they may upset you...

Critical Design Exhibition (ISTC event)

Last evening we had a great exhibition of six 'critical designs' called  "The Fragile Self in Anxious Times." The exhibition was part of our involvement in the Intel ISTC Social Computing project. The designs are by our PhD students Shad Gross and Youngsuk Lee who are working with Jeff Bardzell, Shaowen Bardzell and me.

The six designs are exciting examples of what happens when you design interactive devices that are not designed for a well defined purpose and functionality and without any well-defined intended user. The designs are meant to express some aspects of 'criticality'. (I should have some pictures here of course, maybe I can add that later.)

In relation to the concrete design work we are also developing a theoretical framework about  what 'criticality' stands for in design. The reason for this work is that we found ourselves quite frustrated with the way critical design has previously been defined. We are making good progress and will at some point present our theoretical framework.

Anyway, yesterday we had the exhibition and about 50 students and faculty were engaged with the designs, all documenting their immediate thoughts and reflections. We were also happy to have Melissa Gregg from Intel visiting us during the exhibition.

New book: Mads Nygaard Folkmann's book "The aesthetics of Imagination in Design"

I have the pleasure working with Ken Friedman as Series Editors for a MIT Press book series called Design Thinking/Design Theory. Today I got the fourth book in the series which is  Mads Nygaard Folkmann's book "The aesthetics of Imagination in Design". Here is how the book is presented by MIT Press:

"In The Aesthetics of Imagination in Design, Mads Folkmann investigates design in both material and immaterial terms. Design objects, Folkmann argues, will always be dual phenomena—material and immaterial, sensual and conceptual, actual and possible. Drawing on formal theories of aesthetics and the phenomenology of imagination, he seeks to answer fundamental questions about what design is and how it works that are often ignored in academic research."

It is exciting to work with a book series and one of the perks is that you get to see so many book proposals usually a couple of years before they are books, so it is a way of looking into the future. Unfortunately the vast majority of the proposals we get are never written. It seems as if many feel the calling to write a book but few have the time and energy it takes (they definitely do not lack good ideas!).

Anyway, take a look at these books and remember that we are always looking for ideas and manuscripts. Just email me if you want to discuss your ideas. You do not have to have a finished proposal or draft, just some ideas are ok to start with.

Remember that books usually have much more impact on a field than any articles and they stay relevant for a long time and do not get old in the same way. 

The fear of 'big data'

In my early days of my undergraduate education we read a lot about the relation between the model in the computer and the part of reality that the model was supposed to represent. My most influential professor at that time, Kristo Ivanov, always warned us about the danger when data is seen as a 'resource' like a natural resource to be harvest. He always stressed that all data, and even more so information, is the result of a process that involves mechanisms, procedures, measuring, and choices that ultimately rests on values and are driven by intentions. He always claimed: "there is no "raw" data". It is fascinating to see the exact same discussion emerging today  in the wake of the enormous interest in 'big data'. The same topics that were heavily discussed in the late 70s are again examined. The content of a new book "Raw data is an oxymoron" edited by Lisa Gitelman (MIT Press, 2013) is an evidence of that (here is a good review).

The discussion in the 70s about data, information and knowledge and how (computerized) models form and shape our reality was maybe exaggerated and raised way too early. The consequences of the use of data at that time was rather minimal, the computational abilities and even more the lack of 'data' made the fear of data used wrongly quite 'academic'. However with the advent of 'big data' and with the computational powers of today, the consequences are now real and have to be addressed.

Book note: Can Robots Commit Crimes?

I read today in the Chronicle of Higher Education about a forthcoming book "When Robots Kill: Artificial Intelligence Under Criminal Law" (forthcoming from Northeastern University Press), by Gabriel Hallevy. It is fascinating to see the growing debate about the 'nature' of robots and intelligent systems and to what extent they should be considered to have agency of some kind and therefore also responsibility for their actions. According the the Chronicle, Hallevy makes the case that we already hold other non-human entities responsible for their actions, for instance corporations even though they have no spirit, soul or physical body, so why not robots?

As someone who read all the works by Isaac Asimov (a long time ago) these questions are not new. All Asimov followers know his Three Laws of Robotics. Asimov envisioned a future society where robots had intelligence and agency in way that we are still far from. In his writings he explored what the relationship between humans and robots would or could look like, and what we humans could do to protect ourselves from robots. We are of course still far from the world that Asimov wrote about, but maybe we are getting closer. It seems as if Hallevy's new book is a sign of that.

The Evil of Design

Even though I am happy to see the wonderful push for design thinking and a designerly approach today in academia and in business, it is also a bit disturbing to see the lack of critical thinking about design. Design as an approach is today by many seen as the silver bullet to almost any kind of problem. A design approach is considered to be able to deal with any kind of situation. I do agree that design as an approach is powerful, maybe more so than many believe even among those who advocate it. I do agree that many issues today should be approached in a designerly way. But it is also crucial to remember that design as an approach is not inherently good.

Almost all things that scare us and make our lives difficult and dangerous are designed. Some of the most wonderful examples of great design are also considered to be manifestations of evil. Humans design wars, genoside, weapons of destruction, and maybe even more extraordinary but less obvious designs aimed at suppressing people (such as political, governing or business structures), sometimes even in combination with wonderful 'user' experiences that makes people appreciate being oppressed (what a great design!).

In this new emerging era of design thinking and designerly approaches it is important to remember that design is only an approach--it is a process. It is a powerful approach, but there is no guarantor that the outcome will be good design and there is no guarantee that the design process will not lead to evil designs. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the character of the designer. Values and beliefs guides and shapes the judgements made by the designer. Developing design competence therefore means developing once personal character as well as once design thinking ability. 

Anyone engaging in design in a serious way therefore has to be constantly aware of and reflect on the 'nature' of design and also be highly critical of any simple versions of design that promises processes that will lead to good results in some 'automatic' prescriptive guaranteed way. Critical thinking is as important in design as in science.

[In the book "The Design Way" these issues are discussed in the chapters "The Evil of Design" and "The Guarantor-of-Design (g.o.d.)"]

Design thinking revisited by Norman

Don Norman has in some earlier writings been quite critical to the notion of "design thinking", however now he argues that he has changed his mind. I agree with the new Norman. He makes the case that if we see design thinking more as a tool or method then he is ok with it. And he is also careful with stating that it is not the case that all designers are engaged with design thinking, or that all design schools do teach it. I could not agree more. Working with designers all over the world I know first hand that design thinking is not necessarily understood everywhere where the label design is used. Even worse is that a deeper understanding of design as a human universal approach (much broader and critical than design thinking) is almost completely lacking still. But hopefully this is changing in the years to come.

I have one problem with Norman's new position though. He writes "Two powerful tools of design thinking summarize the approach: the British Design Council's "Double-Diamond, Diverge-Converge Model of Design"; and the iterative process of Observation, Ideation, Prototype, and Test called "Human-Centered Design." I think it is dangerous to substitute a way of thinking with a couple of formalized and standardized methods with their own structure and process. Design thinking to me means a critical stance that makes it possible to engage with a situation in a way that is suitable to the context and circumstances. I am sure there are many design situations that would not be suitable to approach by the Human Centered Design process that Norman describes. I have seen numerous design process carried out in an excellent way that in no shape or form resembles that process. So, design thinking, is about thinking, not about particular tools or methods, it is the thinking itself that is the tool!

Interface tile designs--evolution or fashion

I guess you have already realized that one of the most popular interface design styles today is tile design. The examples are many, Pinterest (maybe where it started), Windows 8, USA today, etc. Even "older" designs are changing their design to become more tile like. Ebay is trying to look like Pinterest.

The tile design has an immediate appeal. It is clear, structured, appears to be highly organized and of course, is in many cases visually appealing. We have over the years seen many "styles" come and go, usually they have been seen as evolutions of the interface--new paradigms. GUI is seen as superior to command based interaction for instance and not as a style or fashion. Touch and gesture is seen as developments away from traditional keyboard interactions--not as a fashion. But is tile interfaces the next step in the evolution of interfaces or is it only a style, a fashion? And if so, does it matter?

My own very personal and unscientific analysis of tile interfaces has led me to the conclusion that the positive aspects I mentioned above does not come without problems. The dominating visual aspect of tiles seems to make it difficult to create distinctions between different types of content and also between differences in importance (apart from size). It also seems to be difficult to create a supporting browsing structure that does not "force" the user to inspect all tiles in the same way and with the same effort. I have to admit that I have not done enough examinations of this to be able to argue for any of these observations, but I am sure that they could use some study.

If tile design is less an overall evolution and improvement of the interface and more of a fashion, it does not mean that is necessary bad or less valuable. Styles and fashion are common in every area where it is difficult to make serious developments on the fundamental qualities of an artifact, for instance, clothes. New styles and fashions can be seen as ways to keep things from becoming boring and repetitive. And that is maybe what the tile design paradigm is all about.

I would like to hear what others think about this. Maybe interaction design, at least some aspects of it like traditional screen design, is at  a stage where style and fashion will become even more important and truly new interaction paradigms will be less common.

Personally, I am already a bit tired of tile designed interfaces. They do not work well for me. USA Today is a good example where I do not see any positive improvements when it comes to the overall user experience. But, I may be wrong.

Interfaces of not?

During the last few years we have seen a drastic change in what is usually seen as the interface of interactive artifacts and systems. There are many who examine this change, such as this article about "Why The Human Body Will Be The Next Computer Interface".

I am excited to see speculations about this since I am working with Lars-Erik Janlert on a new article about this topic. The article is to some extent based on our previous article "Complex Interaction" even though it hopefully breaks some new ground when it comes to the big questions of "what is an interface"  and the future oriented question of "what is the future of interfaces".

There are a number of interesting questions that we try to investigate int the article, for instance, what is the most useful definition of interfaces, does the Kinect have an interface, when interfaces are everywhere how can we think about them, etc. These questions are important since if answered they may help and support designers who on an everyday basis make decisions about the manifestations and materializations of interfaces. Questions like "should we try to make the interface smaller", "should we try to remove the interface" or "are gestures a good form of interaction in this case". The consequences of all these decisions are not obvious even though for a particular device they may make be. When we look at the landscape of interfaces that we all live within, every decision regarding one interface will influence the use and usefulness of all the others. There is an 'ecosystem' or landscape effect of all design decisions. Anyway, in our article we deal with all these issues and also relate them to the history of interfaces.