Chapter 2: Developments in Design Research Methods – an overview through
2.1 State of Art Theoretical Framework of Design Research
CHAPTER 2: DEVELOPMENTS IN DESIGN
Taken as a reference, Sanders’s framework provides us with good starting point and contextualizes our research endeavors in larger scheme of things.
It constitutes mapping of essentially all disciplines related to design research (Figure 2.1). The map succinctly summarizes the chronological account of various fields of study lending support to design research. It also depicts the transition of role of designer/ researcher, and perception of user in the design process.
Figure 2.1: Topography of Design Research (Adapted from E. Sanders, 2006, p. 4)
While reading chart (Figure 2.1) from bottom to top, it is clear that lower half of chart is research heavy, evolved from a research perspective and the upper half of chart is design heavy, evolved from a design perspective. Research tools and methods already available in other domains were mainly used to understand users’ functional needs. In the mid 2000s, such research tools gave way to more creative and designerly tools.
From left to right, the chart specifies the users’ role in the entire design process and also depicts the mindset of the designer/researcher. Left-half sees ‘users as subjects’ and right-half ‘users as partners’. In the bottom left corner, ‘researcher’ scientifically garners
user’s observed responses, responses to stimuli, queries etc. Since the users mainly provide responses in some way, they are usually termed as ‘respondents’ or
‘informants’. Contrasting it, methods in the top left corner allow ‘designer’ to design tools and methods to provoke or probe users. Users here are termed as ‘audience’.
Overall the entire left side of chart is called ‘Design for users’. However, in methods shown on the entire right side, users actively participate as partners in the design process. Depicting this way as ‘designing with users’, designers or researchers work along with users in creating new concepts and ideas, thereby sharing their experiences.
Historically, there has been a transition in ‘designing for user’ to ‘designing with user’.
Bubbles in the chart like ‘contextual enquiry’ and ‘lead user innovation’ are independent design research methods without any support from professional organizations. Clusters represent larger amount of activity than bubbles and are supported by fields of study/research or professional organizations. These clusters and bubbles, club up as larger spaces called zones. So, there are four zones and each zone encompasses respective clusters and bubbles. Before talking about each of these bubbles, clusters and zones, it may be important to talk about very early paradigms of design.
2.2 1950-1960: Scientific Temper
As post World War II era threw a lot of design challenges to designers, it was soon realized that intuitive way of designing was not possible (Alexander, 1964). Inspired from Space programs, systematic design process was undertaken, that constituted of Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation (Jones, 1984, p. 11). For the first time, a scientific temper was given to the design process. As seen in the literature, ‘analysis’ assumed the most important space in the design process (French, 1985). This was also called
‘Analytic Paradigm of Architecture and Design’ (Tzonis, 1990). Horst Rittel also referred to these as ‘First Generation Design Methods’ (Rittel, 1972). Chris Jones (Jones, 1984, p. 11), laying stress on ‘Analysis’ stage referred analysis to be a set of logically related performance specifications.
Bruce Archer model (Archer, 1984, p. 64) defined six types of activities:
• Programming: establish crucial issues; propose a course of action.
• Data Collection: collect, classify and store data.
• Analysis: Identify sub-problems; prepare performance (or design)
• Synthesis: prepare outline design proposals
• Development: develop prototype design(s); prepare and execute validation studies.
• Communication: prepare manufacturing documentation.
He summarized this process into three broad phases: analytical, creative and executive as shown in Figure 2.2.
Figure 2.2: The main phases of design (Adapted from Archer, 1984, p. 64)
This era brought forth proliferation of rationalism (Alexander, 1964) in design and is characterized as Cartesian deductive. During that phase of time, some of the earlier definitions of design reflected this attention towards functional considerations that dominated design approaches:
• Finding the right physical components of a physical structure (Alexander, 1963)
• A goal directed activity (Archer, 1965)
• The performing of a very complicated act of faith (Jones, 1966)
Definitions of that era clearly highlight the scientific nature of the design process.
Meanwhile in Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm, Tomas Maldonado & Gui Bonseipe consciously started to relate science and design, that brought in new aesthetics termed as Techno-aesthetics, also referred to as Ulm-functionalism (Bürdek, 2005, p. 254). This methodology influenced the curriculum and approaches of two pioneer design schools of India; National Institute of Design Ahmedabad established in 1967 and Industrial Design Centre IIT Bombay, Mumbai established in 1969.
Famous transportation designer, Raymond Loewy (Figure 2.3) imparted streamlined forms inspired from then known technical field of ‘aerodynamics’. This work is also contextualized in Art-Deco movement of Modernism.
Figure 2.3: Loewy standing on his design, PRR S1 steam locomotive (CBS, 2017)
2.3 1970-1990: Communicative Function of Design
A paradigm shift was experienced in 1970s and 1980s. People were disillusioned (Sparke, 2013) by deductive methods and they gave way to inductive methods (Bürdek, 2005, p. 257) that laid stress on user and the user’s context. For the first-time user and user context got prominence and started to assume centrality.
Context of use:
‘If form represents the solution for the problem of design and context defines the form then discussions about design are not only about form but unity of form and context’. (Alexander, 1964)
People wanted to associate their identity with a product; therefore, they looked for more humanistic approaches. During this period, attention shifted to the communicative function of design from actual function of design. Object was dominated by image and representation. This movement celebrated eclecticism of products and exhibited strong relationships of objects with their consumers. In late 80s, there was a distinct shift in the design approach from ‘how products are made’ to ‘what products mean to end users’.
Design was expected to respond to the user needs, his context, his cultural diversity (despite globalization) and his/her aspirations by designing the context-sensitive and expressive forms of products, services and systems. Though post-modernism started to decline in 1990s, some car manufacturers like Chrysler, BMW and Volkswagen embraced the tendency of staying in nostalgic past, and being contemporary thereby appealing to different markets. One of the examples is Volkswagen’s new Beetle (Figure 2.4), designed by J Mays and Freeman Thomas.
Figure 2.4: Volkswagen’s new ‘Beetle’ (Autoblog, 2005)