Thoughts on the Future of Design

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Background : Product design teams have been routinely conducting studies in design research since the late 1970s, when research became a more-accepted part of the design process. However, most of the research conducted falls into the category of what Richard Buchanan termed clinical research – focused on gathering information for a specific project being undertaken by a design team. This paper asserts that unless more encompassing forms of research are undertaken, the full potential of design to have a positive impact on our lives will not be realized. With a single goal of finalizing a project, designers typically forgo the collection and dissemination of knowledge that would advance the state of the design profession. The profession therefore tends to place its value on what designers do instead of what designers know.
Methods : This paper references past articles on the topic of design research and knowledge, and combines their thoughts with observations by the author of common practices in the design profession.
Results : While this paper is not reporting on results of a specific study in design research, it strives to put the current state of design and research activities in perspective, with a call to leave design`s past practices behind to expand and evolve our knowledge in design – by focusing on better understanding of people. It also suggests that the methods by which design teams are assembled, in an agency or corporate design department, can have limitations. An alternative model, being tested by some, calls for the formation of collectives of experts in design-related topics, putting together teams of the most appropriate people, not the most available, as is often the situation in real-world practice.
Conclusions : The methods developed and touted by designers since the late 1970s, now commonplace, call for research activities to take place at the outset of a project to guide design efforts. Research conducted in the majority of projects is process-based, meant to reach a goal as opposed to add to a wider knowledge base. This paper makes the case however that in order to advance the profession, to further unleash the power of design, a change in mindset must be implemented. More value needs to be placed on knowledge in design.
A challenge will be to shift design`s focus from the product, the legacy of the industrial design profession, to understanding people. This would call for a significant change in design schools` curriculums.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Abstract
• 1. The word design
• 2. The form-function dilemma
• 3. People research
• 4. The emergence of design research
• 5. Rethinking the culture
• 6. Collectives may be an answer
• 7. The need for applied and basic design research
• References

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 Van Praet, D., "Unconscious Branding: How Neuroscience Can Empower (and Inspire) Marketing" Palgrave Macmillan 2014
• 2 Frankel, L., "The complex field of research: For design, through design, and about design" Université de Montréal 2010
• 3 CB Insights, "The Top 20 Reasons Startups Fail"
• 4 Sullivan, L. H., "The Tall Office Building Artistically Considered" 403-409, 1896
• 5 Dreyfuss, H., "Designing for people" Simon and Schuster 1955
• 6 Buchanan, R., "Design research and the new learning" 17 (17): 3-23, 2001
• 7 Maeda, "Design in Tech Report 2017"
• 8 Maeda, "Design in Tech Report 2016"