The Essence of
Interaction Design Research:
A Call for Consistency
Sam Ladner

Copernicus Consulting Group | [e-mail]
[ 1] http:// www.
ixda.org/discuss.
php?post=46278 IXDA
Discussion Forum/
[ 2] Friedman, M.
“Autonomy, Social
Disruption and Women.”
In Relational Autonomy:
Feminist Perspectives
on Autonomy, Agency,
and the Social Self,
eds. MacKenzie, C.
and Stoljar, N. Oxford:
Oxford University Press,
2000.

[ 3] Greenwood, E. “Attributes of a Profession.” Social Work 2 (1957): 44–55.

March + April 2010

[ 4] Larson, M. The Rise of Professionalism, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1977.

interactions

It started with an innocent query to the IxDA listserv [ 1]. Someone was sure they had read an article in interactions magazine once but could not find it again: “Wasn’t there something written sometime by someone about something like sample size in usability research?” asked an expectant interaction designer. Woe is the hapless interaction designer who is unprepared for the firestorm that follows the dreaded “sample size” question. Some 106 replies later, not only was the question clearly left unanswered, but worse, it also left many scratching their heads in genuine confusion. What is the essence of interaction design research? Is it data-driven and “scientific”? Is it exploratory and qualitative? No consensus was reached. Again.

This schizophrenia is both a
blessing and a curse. On the one
hand, an interaction designer
has the freedom to assemble
their research program like an
artist assembling an installa-
tion: Whatever inspires them
can indeed find a place in the
final result. Yet such a lack
of standards leads to a dis-
tinct lack of consistency and
expertise. If interaction design
research is whatever you want
it to be, what is to stop other
occupations from “colonizing”
what ought to be the purview
of interaction research? See,
for example, Dan Formosa’s
article in the November +
December 2009 issue of interac-
tions, lamenting the intrusion
of market research into the
design field. When there are
no standards, there is freedom.
As Sartre said, we are “con-
demned to be free,” meaning,
when there are no predefined
codes of conduct, then we must
tragically, wonderfully, horribly
create ourselves. The confusion
over the essence of interaction
design research is us, thrashing
about as we desperately create
ourselves.

The Long and Winding Road
Most people stumble into inter-
action design. Unlike a profes-
sion such as medicine, interac-
tion design has a distinctively
ill-defined apprenticeship. The
proliferation of interaction-
design job titles demonstrates
this vagueness. A lack of stan-
dardization is liberating for
many but has the unintended
consequence of undermining
the interaction designer’s auton-
omy. To become an accountant,
professor, or engineer, individu-
als must meet compulsory stan-
dards, pass examinations, and
prove their mastery of the pro-
fession’s “canon” of knowledge
in order to practice it. Jobs that
involve a canon are typically
called a “profession” instead of a
mere “occupation.”
Indeed, a profession is not
simply a job that requires skill.
A profession differs from an
occupation in that its members
exercise exclusive control over a
specific body of knowledge [ 2, 3,
4]. A profession must therefore
have a clearly defined certifi-
cation process, which in turn
allows its members to exercise a
sort of monopoly over the work
itself. If a doctor is fired from
a hospital, he or she contin-
ues to be a doctor. No hospital
administrator can remove the
ability to write prescriptions, for
example; only a doctor’s peers
can remove or grant this ability.
Those peers have decided the