Generative Efforts

In Goodman, Stolterman, and Wakkary’s 2011 article “Understanding Interaction Design Practices,” they call for interaction design researchers to pay more attention to the design practice. Originally I thought this article is somewhat research-centric, especially in the section where they talk about the ideal theory of interaction design practice. However, upon reflection, I realize that if what these researchers advocate is followed, it could bring welcoming development to design practitioners as well.

Even though it is very difficult - if not impossible - to reduce the complexity of design practice to simple design principles or rules, with researchers’ strengths in synthesis, there will be interesting insights from interaction design research. These insights, coupled with “reflection in action” and “reflection on action” as advocated by Schön (1983 & 1987), will help practitioners learn to become more designerly. Like Goodman, Stolterman, and Wakkary state in the said article, “empirically grounded descriptions and critical analyses of design practice activities will offer frameworks for reflection on practices that designers can find useful.”

Indeed, it is not hard to see that academic inquiry into design practice will help extract knowledge from it, so that instead of relying on their direct experience case by case, designers can broaden the scope of experiences from which they develop what Kolko (2014) calls “higher-order organizing principles.” Research with a locus on actual design practices will also help designers recognize and perceive the patterns and structure from what Dewey (1934) characterizes as “experiences” and distill meanings from them in their significant design experiences.

Therefore, other than their own reflexivity, designers can tap in to academic research as one of their sources of knowing, learning, and making sense of the activities, experiences, and contexts of their design practice, thereby open up alternative perspectives about past practice, current trends, and future possibilities. Even though there is no substitute for their own experience, designers can leverage their experience with the aid of the direction of research Goodman, Stolterman, and Wakkary call for.

A closer connection between design theorists and practitioners will not only embody the intertwining nature of the intellectual and practical parts of experiences as Dewey identifies, it will also encourage mutual learning and enrich each others’ viewpoints. Additionally, it can also have significant pedagogical implications - it can help interaction design students gain better understanding about design practice before they actually get into the field, and potentially generate interesting sparks in the research-practice-teaching triangle.

Like Goodman, Stolterman, and Wakkary posit, the “mutual intelligibility of language” between interaction design researchers and practitioners is something notable. My concern is that even with an attempt to bridge the gap between HCI research on interaction design practice and related designers, academics may find themselves in an odd position of balancing between publication requirements on the one hand, and making the knowledge accessible and easily digestible to practitioners on the other. However, there are already publication venues that make this balancing act less stringent. Hopefully, as this line of research gains momentum, more venues will open up.

In all, as a researcher-turned designer, I appreciate Goodman, Stolterman, and Wakkary’s efforts in connecting the research and practice of interaction design. I believe the resulting benefits will feedback to both parties and be generative, with a positive externality to teaching/learning in design schools as well.

References

1. Dewey, J. 1934. Having an Experience. In J. Dewey, Art as Experience, pp. 35-57. NY: New York: Minton, Balch and Company.
2. Goodman, E., E. Stolterman, and R. Wakkary. 2011. Understanding Interaction Design Practices. Paper presented at CHI 2011, May 7-12, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
3. Kolko, J. 2014. Why I teach Theory. Interactions 21(6): 22-23. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2663294
4. Schön, D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
5. Schön, D.A. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.