On Logic, Research,
Design Synthesis…
Jon: A core theme of this issue of interactions has
been the relationship between interaction design
and education: how to teach it, how to learn it,
and how to live it. As a designer, I’m obviously
biased toward design education, as I see design as
a core tenet of life, akin to reading and writing.
Design has often been characterized as “
dreaming” or “problem solving,” both of which I consider
underpinnings of human life. At the same time,
I see the value in logic and pragmatism, and I’m
often challenged professionally to “prove it” or
“back it up with a sound, logical argument.” Do
you think future generations of professionals in
the interaction world will have to walk the line
between Art (emotion) and Science (logic), or will
Design with a capital D finally have its time to
shine?
Richard: Can design truly shine without
addressing both emotion and logic? Was a need to
walk the line between art and science responsible
for all the messes described in the first section of
this issue, or is the culprit better described as an
improper balance?
Roger Martin, whom we referenced in our first
Interactions Cafe discussion, has written about
how the predominant thinking in business—
analytical thinking—is hostile to design, and how
that needs to change. But he doesn’t argue that
analytical thinking has no place.
Perhaps you can’t “prove it.” Perhaps you
shouldn’t be expected to “prove it.” But is it wrong
to expect to develop and use and provide rationale that can be subjected to some form of critique throughout and after the design process?
Is Tracy Fullerton wrong in teaching and
emphasizing the importance of playtesting in her
interactive entertainment program at the USC
School of Cinematic Arts? Was Mark Baskinger
wrong to observe the elderly and kids in his
inclusive design projects? Doesn’t such research
contribute to a kind of “logical argument” that is
essential?
Jon: I wonder if the word “rationale” should
even be part of the designer’s language. A great
deal of the abductive thinking Roger Martin
describes is the “logic” of what might be. This
isn’t logic at all: I think Roger is smart enough to
realize his audience won’t respond well if he were
to call it “the magic of what might be.”
The research Fullerton describes, and
Baskinger conducts, is absolutely worthless
without some form of generative and interpretative synthesis, and this synthesis isn’t logical.
It’s sometimes appropriate, or comprehensive,
or rigorous, or even repeatable, but the notion of
there being a “correctness” to design synthesis
is far-fetched at best. This phase of synthesis
is being publicly glossed over, as design firms
pander to businesses looking to get ahead: “Do
a little research, and—bam!—innovative products! Design thinking in action!” User research
is wonderful, but it isn’t Design thinking at all;