Trigg 1991) and engineering (Jordan & Henderson 1995; Tang 1989; Tang & Leifer 1991). Approaches in developing Action Repertoires. As researchers ...
Designing Perception-Action Theories: Theory-Building for Design Practice Malte Jung Stanford University, Stanford, USA Neeraj Sonalkar Stanford University, Stanford, USA Ade Mabogunje Stanford University, Stanford, USA Banny Banerjee Stanford University, Stanford, USA Micah Lande Stanford University, Stanford, USA Christopher Han Stanford University, Stanford, USA Larry Leifer Stanford University, Stanford, USA
Abstract Like many other design researchers we entered the field of design research with backgrounds in analytical engineering and science—the “sciences of the natural” as Herbert Simon put it. But we were also designers at heart, wanting to change existing conditions for the better. When trying to combine these two perspectives we were faced with a dilemma. We had the option of doing scientific research as observers detached from the situation; or doing social science research with a situated understanding but without changing the situation itself for the better; or be designers and actively change the situation without being considered as doing research. The dilemma we faced was between studying a design situation and changing it, while bridging the gap between generalizability and situatedness of our understanding. It is a dilemma unique to the practice of design research. We explore an argument that theories and theorizing in design differ from those in the natural and social sciences. We propose that those actually grounded in the experience of perception and action fare better at being relevant to practice and understanding.
233
1. Introduction Design research and design practice need a new kind of theory. We need theory that speaks to design researchers and design practitioners alike. We therefore re-conceptualize the very notion of theory to fit the specific needs of our design research community. Theory is a conceptual construct that enables researchers in many disciplines to collaborate, communicate ideas, and build on the work of others. Theory lends particular structure to the telling of our beliefs that generally involves talking about distinctions and causal relationships. This structure has proven to be a particularly useful one in advancing what is known. Hence, for many research disciplines the activities of building and testing theory have a central role. However we often forget that there exist many different understandings of what theory means (Thomas 1997). Different disciplines have developed different notions of theory. Each notion of theory is valuable and useful for that particular discipline. For example, as empirical data is of less importance to mathematics, a mathematician’s concept of theory is likely to be less concerned with whether constructs relate to empirical phenomena. And the Mathematician’s notion of theory is different from that of a physicist or from what an organizational behavior researcher considers theory. Each field has developed what we call its own theory-discourseculture along with its own embedded values and mindsets. In sum, we make a rough distinction between these two predominant approaches to theory: 1. Natural Science Theories—Descriptive and predictive theories developed from the perspective of observers detached from the situation. 2. Social Science Theories—Descriptive theories developed from the perspective of observers in the situation. Currently, as design researchers, we talk about theories of design, according to the discourse cultures of other disciplines. Sometimes we think of theory as do physicists (Dixon 1987), other times as do cognitive scientists (Gero 1999), or management scientists (Hatchuel & Weil 2003), and we borrow the particular structures from these disciplines. While these theories are interesting and useful, they have not allowed a sustained discourse among the broader community of design researchers let alone between design researchers and design practitioners. As design researchers interested in improving the activity of designing, we need to be able to talk about theory in ways that help us accomplish this. Our theories do need to be relevant for both design research and design practice. The current challenges suggest there may be a relevance-gap between the researcher’s scientific approach, focused on generalizability, and the design practitioner’s approach, focused on situatedness. Some instances of theory have been able to bridge that relevance gap and have enabled a discourse between researchers and practitioners. For example Gibson’s Theory of Affordances (Gibson 1977), as revisited by Norman (2002), inspired both practitioners and researchers. It allowed a fruitful conversation wherein both communities adopted parts of the theory to inform what they do—even if it was not always as intended (Norman 1999). For example, it allowed practitioners to see objects in ways they had never seen them before, and it directly informed how they would design them (Fukasawa 2007). On the other hand, it has inspired many exciting studies that delivered new understanding (Ju & Leifer 2008). How could we design a theory-discourse-culture useful for design practitioners and design researchers alike? How could theory be structured to grow a culture of designerly inquiry (Cross 1982), that supports us in what we do, helps us in communicating our understanding and lets us expand and improve our knowing and doing? So far, as design researchers we have often failed to be relevant for design practice. We have not communicated our work in ways that allow other researchers to build upon it. This failure to establish a sustainable discourse between research and practice is faced with a growing need of design practice to have it supported by
234
theory. On the other hand, there is a great desire among design researchers to engage in and contribute to design practice. This potential has not been sufficiently realized.
Figure 1. Distinguishing Perception-Action Theories (Actionable theories developed from the perspective of practitioners in the situation) from Natural-Science Theories (Descriptive and predictive theories developed from the perspective of observers detached from the situation) and Social-Science Theories (Descriptive theories developed from the perspective of observers in the situation).
We therefore aim to introduce the notion of a new kind of theory that fills the gap between research and practice. We intend it as an effort to initiate and enable an ongoing and fruitful discourse between design research and practice. We name this approach Perception-Action Theory. Perception-Action Theories are actionable theories developed from the perspective of practitioners in the situation. The label “Perception-Action Theory” refers to theory that is grounded in the first-person experience of designers engaged in the activity of designing. We refer to implicit or tacit understanding (theory) as well as the ways of seeing (perception) and doing (action) that designers develop through designerly (Cross 1982) interactions with objects and people. We do not intend to propose another theory about designing or about design practice. It is a new kind of theory that we have in mind and a new kind of theorizing around it. In the same way that Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss 1977) is not a specific theory but rather a specification for building theory, we intend Perception-Action Theory to stand for a corpus of theories. And as Grounded Theory methodology was proposed as an approach to develop Grounded Theory, we propose a Perception-Action Theory Methodology as an approach to develop Perception-Action Theory.
2. The job of Perception-Action Theory What job does theory have in design research? Like many other design researchers we entered the field of design research with a background in analytical engineering and science—the “sciences of the natural” as Herbert Simon (1969) put it. But we are also designers at heart, wanting to change existing conditions for the better. When trying to combine these two perspectives we were faced with a dilemma. We had the option of doing scientific research as observers detached from the situation; or doing social science research with a situated understanding but without changing the situation itself for the better; or be designers and actively change the situation without being considered as doing research. The dilemma we faced was between studying a design situation and changing it, while bridging the gap between generalizability and situatedness of our understanding. It is a dilemma unique to the practice of design research. The job of Perception-Action Theory is to address this dilemma. As design researchers, we can develop social science theories, cognitive psychology theories, or mathematical theories on the activity of designing. We may have the advantage of adding particular insight because of our own individual prior experiences in design practice and the empathy we have for the people we study, but building those types of theories means adopting methods and practices that researchers in other disciplines are also trained and able to do.
235
Perception-Action Theory is a kind of theory that only design researchers are able to develop. In other words, it builds upon the skills and natural inclinations of the design researcher, who identifies as both a researcher and designer. Such a “blueprint” for theory, relevant to design research and practice, must underscore those activities that only design researchers are able to do and are trained to want. A typical job of theory is to provide speculations about truth and to give answers. PerceptionAction Theory in design research and practice is more. Beyond only obtaining understanding through a traditional “scholarship of merit”, it must also tackle its “scholarship of impact” (Lande, Adams, Chen, Currano & Leifer 2008) and inspire useful possibilities. Research-led inquiry is generally driven by Deep Reasoning Questions (Eris 2004). A Deep Reasoning Question is a question that is convergent in nature and it operates under the assumption that a specific answer, or a specific set of answers, exists for a given question. A hypothesis, for example, is a question of the deep reasoning type. However, practice led inquiry often operates under the diametrically opposite premise: that for any given question, there exists, multiple alternative known answers as well as multiple unknown possible answers, regardless of them being true or false. These questions are divergent in nature, they are Generative Design Questions (Eris 2004). That is, rather than asking “What happens when people are designing?” we can also ask: “How can we improve how people are designing?” Designing happens in the space between divergent and convergent questions. Design research is the only field of inquiry in which both types of questions explicitly motivate what we do. Therefore, the job of PerceptionAction Theory through its conceptualization and methodology should never just be providing answers but also always opening a space for possibilities and imagination.
3. Perceptual Field, Action Repertoire, and Theory-In-Action We introduced the notion of Perception-Action Theory because we value and enjoy designing and theorizing. We see value in engaging in these two activities as a community. With the notion of Perception-Action Theory we aim to ground a theory discourse in embodied experience, in what it is that designers perceive while they are designing, and in the repertoires of actions designers can choose from while they are designing. Currently theory and practice are disjoint. We want to build a theory discourse that is grounded in experience, or in how things “feel inside” (Bernstein, Latash, Turvey & Corporation 1996, p. 184:158) as cited by Ingold (2001). We propose this shift because, in agreeing with Ingold (2001), we “regard technical processes not as products of intelligence but as practices of skill.” Ingold puts the coordination of perception and action at the core of a skill. He argues that if we want to understand a skill we need to “shift our analytic focus from problem-solving, conceived as a purely cognitive operation distinct from the practical implementation of the solutions reached, to the dynamics of practitioner’s engagement, in perception and action, with their environments.” To engage in a theory discourse that is grounded in experience, current skills and to engage in a theory discourse that opens up the designing of new skills for design practice we want to introduce the notions of (1) Theory-In-Action, (2) Perceptual Field, and (3) Action Repertoire. We introduce these notions through an explicit reflection on an anecdote from a design class: One of our colleagues taught an introductory course in design. In this class he had an assignment to design an object that is gratifying to handle. One student spent an incredible amount of time on exploring what it meant for something to be gratifying. She experimented with different materials, shapes, and surface structures and finally presented an object that whoever held it did not want to let it go. The kidney-shaped object was simple, smooth, and just the right size to hold comfortably in one’s hand. A slight weight imbalance made it particularly compelling. In the end all we usually see is the beauty of the object. However, in the course of her designing, the designer gained insights to identify what characteristics were relevant, how to
236
change those characteristics, and why certain manipulations led to specific outcomes desirable to her. We might say she developed her own implicit gratifying-to-handle-theory as an implicit theory-in-action. Let us assume that at the beginning of her exploration she probably had some ideas of what it means for something to be gratifying to handle. However she didn’t let her designing be guided by her initial theory, which would have been to design an object based on what she already knew. She rather embarked on a course of wayfaring in the purpose-context of designing something that was gratifying to handle. In that wayfaring she extended what we call a Perceptual Field, a corpus of noticings that are relevant in a particular purpose context. Things like “surface structure”, or “weight imbalance” might have been components of her perceptual field. She also extended what we call her Action Repertoire, her corpus of behavior enabling her to manipulate her environment. A relevant action could be labeled “polishing”, or “adding an imbalance weight”. A related example of an exploration that led to the development of new distinctions, possibilities for action and theory is described in Niedderer’s explorations in designing mindful interactions (Niedderer 2007). We want the notion of Perception-Action Theory to help us in reflecting on and in guiding design explorations by paying particular attention to what it is we are “seeing”, “doing” when engaged in an interaction and then to help us ask why certain doings let to certain changes.
Perceptual Field Goodwin describes how different professions “see” and how their seeing makes particular interpretations and actions relevant (Goodwin 1994). Our notion of a perceptual field is inspired by his paper on professional vision. With perceptual field, Goodwin refers more literally to what is in a person’s field of vision. We, in contrast, refer to perceptual field analogous to a magnetic field. With this analogy we want to emphasize the notion that the boundaries of what we attend to are fluid, and that what we perceive gravitates towards known distinctions such as the ones established through a Munsell color chart (Goodwin 1994). We define a Perceptual Field as sensing organized around a purposeful activity. With the notion of a perceptual field we want to refer to what one notices when one is engaged in the activity of designing. This noticing can refer to things in the environment or to internal states and feelings. A Perceptual Field can, for example, be set up through disciplinary training, or through certain media that make specific characteristics salient. Re-framing in terms of a Perceptual Field means shifting from one Perceptual Field to another Perceptual Field.
Action Repertoire Analogous to a perception, we define an Action Repertoire as moving organized around a purposeful activity. With an Action Repertoire we want to refer to the choices from a corpus of behaviors a designer has when engaged in the practice of designing. An Action Repertoire can be seen as the corpus of behaviors a designers has at his or her disposal when engaging in a conversation with the situation.
Theory-In-Action With theory-in-action we refer to the heuristics, beliefs, expectations, and explicit understandings that guide what we pay attention to, what actions we choose and how we evaluate the outcome or our actions. Argyris and Schön refer to this as Theory-in-Use (Argyris 1995; Argyris & Schön 1989). Our aim is to engage in reflective conversations about these heuristics, beliefs, and expectations to build explicit and sharable theory.
237
4. Designing Perception-Action Theory The purpose of a practice to design Perception-Action Theory is to instrument designers, to enable them with new ways in interacting with their environment. We envision a new set of tools, methods and instruments to facilitate the development of Perception-Action Theory. What tools, frameworks, and practices let us design new ways of seeing and doing and then reflect about them? We believe that there is not a single process, framework or tool that can accomplish this but rather a conglomerate of things that we can adapt and add to in ever new ways. Many components of a methodological package are already available that we can use in designing Perception-Action Theory and that we can develop further. We borrow most of the components we found useful from approaches developed in engineering design, anthropology and organizational behavior research. We organize these components as to whether they contribute in the development of a Perceptual-Field, an Action-Repertoire, or a Theory-In-Action.
Approaches in developing Perceptual Fields At the Center for Design Research we have a lab, we call it the Design Observatory (Carrizosa, Eris, Milne & Mabogunje 2002), that we have used for the past 20 years to design perceptual fields. Before Eris’ (2004) work, when we looked at designers interacting we never “saw” their questions, before Mabogunje (1997) we did not see the language they were using, and before Ju (Ju & Leifer 2008) we did not see what she called implicit interactions. We could say that we have invented ever-new ways of “seeing” and experiencing design activity and we have developed tools to invent new ones along the way. Many of these tools are at an intersection of anthropology (Goffman 1971; Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974; Schegloff 2007; Suchman & Trigg 1991) and engineering (Jordan & Henderson 1995; Tang 1989; Tang & Leifer 1991).
Approaches in developing Action Repertoires As researchers however we focused on “seeing”, describing, and predicting design activity. We mostly sat in the audience watching designers designing, never participating in the action and only intervening when setting up a new context for new design activity to observe. This allowed us to build perceptual fields and turn them into explicit coding schemes. However we never developed action repertoires and explicit coding schemes for what we do when we are designing. We need to learn how we can engage not only in the seeing of but also in doing of designing and then theorize on our seeing and doing when engaged in design research. We found traditions of research like Action Research (Lewin 1946), Action Science (Argyris 1983; Argyris & Schön 1989), or Participatory Action Research (Whyte 1989), that emphasize the principle of action, but without a concrete link between the action of changing the situation and the theorizing that leads to generalizable and shareable knowledge.
Approaches in developing Theory-In-Action The body of tools, frameworks and practices for theory-building far exceeds the one available for building perceptual fields or action repertoires. Approaches such as the Grounded Theory methodological package (Glaser & Strauss 1977), case study research (Yin 2008), or the Building Theories from Case Study Research approach (Eisenhardt 1989) are available in building theories based on empirical data. In addition we need approaches that support introspection (Dörner 1994) and building theory inspired by personal experience and insight (Glaser & Strauss 1977).
238
The literature cited above shows that many approaches exist that are useful in building theory about and relevant to the practice of designing. However those different approaches have never been combined in a way that is useful for designing and in a way that only design researchers can bring them together.
5. Summary and outlook In this paper we put forth our position of there being a need for a new conceptualization of theory in design. This position is motivated by our frustration that while the notion of theory has been valuable in research, the current notions of theory do not seem to support a research practice that we as design researchers find valuable, that we enjoy engaging in, and most importantly that only we as design researchers are able to do. We proposed Perception-Action Theory as a kind of theory and methodology for developing theory that fits the particular demands and abilities of design research. We see PerceptionAction Theory as a means to explore the ways through which we can design new skills for researchers and practitioners. This idea rests on an anthropological understanding of what constitutes a skill (Ingold 2001). Our aim, however, is not only to study existing skills but also to engage in activities to design new skills that enable designers to engage with their environment in novel ways. We proposed that the job of Perception-Action Theory is not only to provide answers but also to inspire possibilities in its development and use. We hope that Perception-Action Theory inspires a fruitful discourse among design researchers that inspires the development of new approaches unique to the research aimed at understanding and improving the practice of designing.
Acknowledgements We kindly thank Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Research Program and the Kempe Foundation for the support that made this work possible. Many of the ideas developed here were tried out in the ME397 seminar on Design Theory and Methodology at Stanford University. We therefore want to thank the students in that seminar for their contributions and suggestions.
239
References Argyris, C. 1983, Action science and intervention, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(2), 115. Argyris, C. 1995, Action science and organizational learning, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10(6), 20-26. Argyris, C. & Schön, D. 1989, Participatory action research and action science compared: a commentary, American behavioral scientist, 32(5), 612. Bernstein, N., Latash, M., Turvey, M. & Corporation, E. 1996, Dexterity and its development, Taylor & Francis. Carrizosa, K., Eris, Ö., Milne, A. & Mabogunje, A. 2002, Building The Design Observatory: A Core Instrument For Design Research, Dubrovnik. Cross, N. 1982, Designerly ways of knowing, Design Studies, 3(4), 221-227. Dixon, J. R. 1987, On research methodology towards a scientific theory of engineering design, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 1(3), 145-157. Dörner, D. 1994, Heuristik der Theorienbildung, Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, 1, 343-388. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989, Building theories from case study research, Academy of management review, 532-550. Eris, O. 2004, Effective inquiry for innovative engineering design, Kluwer Academic Pub. Fukasawa, N. 2007, Naoto Fukasawa, Phaidon Press. Gero, J. 1999, Constructive memory in design thinking. Gibson, J. 1977, The theory of affordances, Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology, 67-82. Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A. L. 1977, The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Aldine. Goffman, E. 1971, Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order, Harper & Row. Goodwin, C. 1994, Professional vision, American anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633. Hatchuel, A. & Weil, B. (2003), A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to CK theory, Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm. Ingold, T. 2001, Beyond art and technology: the anthropology of skill, Anthropological perspectives on technology, 17-31. Jordan, B. & Henderson, A. 1995, Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103. Ju, W. & Leifer, L. 2008, The design of implicit interactions: Making interactive systems less obnoxious, Design Issues, 24(3), 72-84.
240
Lande, M., Adams, R., Chen, H., Currano, B. & Leifer, L. 2008, “Scholarship of Impact” framework in engineering education research: Learnings from the institute for scholarship on engineering education. Lewin, K. 1946, Action research and minority problems, Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46. Mabogunje, A. 1997, Measuring Conceptual Design Process Performance in Mechanical Engineering: A Question Based Approach, Mechanical Engineering. Palo Alto, CA, Stanford University, 154. Niedderer, K. 2007, Designing Mindful Interaction: The Category of Performative Object, Design Issues, 23(1), 3-17. Norman, D. 1999, Affordance, conventions, and design, interactions, 6(3), 38-43. Norman, D. 2002, The design of everyday things, Basic Books New York. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. 1974, A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation, Language, 50(4), 696-735. Schegloff, E. 2007, Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I, Cambridge Univ Pr. Simon, H. A. 1969, The sciences of the artificial, The MITPress, Cambridge, Mass. Suchman, L. A. & Trigg, R. H. 1991, Understanding practice: Video as a medium for reflection and design, Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems, pp. 65-89. Tang, J. C. 1989, Gesturing in Design: A Study of the Use of Shared Workspaces by Design Teams, Unpublished Dissertation, Stanford university. Tang, J. C. & Leifer, L. J. 1991, An observational methodology for studying group design activity, Research in Engineering Design, 2(4), 209-219. Thomas, G. 1997, What’s the Use of Theory?, Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 75-105. Whyte, W. 1989, Advancing Scientific Knowledge Through Participatory Action Research. Yin, R. K. 2008, Case study research: Design and methods: Sage publications, INC.
241
