Saturday, June 25, 2005
Theory and method in UX and design practice
How do we bridge methods we've developed in academic research with practical, outcome-oriented design research? We don't have to look too far to find extraordinary ideas and material to improve our methods for understanding individual experience, collaborative practices, and interaction design. One of my goals in Design/Redesign is to pursue redesign of the methods and analysis frameworks I use, advocate, and propose to clients.
There are about 10 theoretical frameworks I like, that bring value in different ways to UX and design practice. A Ph.D. program gives you the time and opportunity to learn and develop the theories and lines of thinking you might otherwise not explore in the time-pressured everyday work environment, or as a consultant on the line for results. What's difficult is finding the most workable applications of the methods and analytical tools from these integrated frameworks and applying them in actual research and design projects. As with any research tool, we don't want to adopt methods too far from the context of the originating theory in which the assumptions for their effectiveness are embedded. One of the drivers for conference participation is keeping up with the evolution of these "theories" or lines of thinking.
I find it calling these "theories" somewhat overstated. Some are closer to theories than others, but they are all interpretive or analytical frameworks that allow us to educe certain types of findings from observable data or make educated suggestions about behavior. OK, some of them are design approaches (PD, CD), but these have a strong theoretical basis.
So once having adopted the interpretivist stance instead of the positivist, the notion of "scientific theory" shifts. The goals of a theory are not prediction, the goals are to understand, to critique, or generate a beneficial social outcome. Working with multiple approaches is not "looser" in the sense of stretching the intention of the originating authors. Instead, I look for the bridging concepts that tie key ideas to similar propositions from other, compatible lines of thinking. There is no project to draw out a meta-theory or to endorse one over another. They all have their place.
The following 10 are frameworks for sense-making, and "lenses" for focusing attention on organizational and design issues. So, in no certain order (as of yet), I'll just post a list:
There are about 10 theoretical frameworks I like, that bring value in different ways to UX and design practice. A Ph.D. program gives you the time and opportunity to learn and develop the theories and lines of thinking you might otherwise not explore in the time-pressured everyday work environment, or as a consultant on the line for results. What's difficult is finding the most workable applications of the methods and analytical tools from these integrated frameworks and applying them in actual research and design projects. As with any research tool, we don't want to adopt methods too far from the context of the originating theory in which the assumptions for their effectiveness are embedded. One of the drivers for conference participation is keeping up with the evolution of these "theories" or lines of thinking.
I find it calling these "theories" somewhat overstated. Some are closer to theories than others, but they are all interpretive or analytical frameworks that allow us to educe certain types of findings from observable data or make educated suggestions about behavior. OK, some of them are design approaches (PD, CD), but these have a strong theoretical basis.
So once having adopted the interpretivist stance instead of the positivist, the notion of "scientific theory" shifts. The goals of a theory are not prediction, the goals are to understand, to critique, or generate a beneficial social outcome. Working with multiple approaches is not "looser" in the sense of stretching the intention of the originating authors. Instead, I look for the bridging concepts that tie key ideas to similar propositions from other, compatible lines of thinking. There is no project to draw out a meta-theory or to endorse one over another. They all have their place.
The following 10 are frameworks for sense-making, and "lenses" for focusing attention on organizational and design issues. So, in no certain order (as of yet), I'll just post a list:
- Activity theory
- Distributed cognition
- Structuration theory and adaptive structuration
- Cognitive work analysis
- Ethnographic ethnomethodology
- Naturalistic decision making
- Participatory Design
- Contextual Inquiry and Design
- Hermeneutics (psychological - lived experience, not philosophical)
- Sense-making
