Design researchers must think fast and slow

Research into brain science some surprising insights for guiding research practice. These findings suggest that the scientific method constrains our natural creativity.
Too often, researchers take their cue from the scientific method. While this method undoubtedly changed the world and our knowledge of it, it is antithetical to the creative needs of a well-rounded researcher. It is especially problematic for design research, which requires creative solutions to existing problems.

Design researchers should embrace less structure and more openness at the early stages of product design, and rigor and structure in the mature stages of product sales. As sales drop off and the product loses its natural match to the culture, design researchers should once again embrace openness in their research approaches.

research phases

Generally, we think of research as the focused, systematic collection of data, over time, in keeping with a given framework or theory. In this view, research is intended to confirm or deny given hypotheses, and incrementally improve our knowledge about a given topic.

We know from the book Thinking Fast and Slow, however, that this research approach only serves one type of thinking. Thinking Fast and Slow author Daniel Kahneman tells us that “Type 2” or “slow thinking” is a disciplined, focused, kind of thought that roughly matches the deductive reasoning of the scientific method and other traditional forms of research. It is structured and deliberate, requiring the cerebral cortex.

But Type 1 or “fast thinking” is less structured, more instinctual, and involves the more reptilian parts of the brain. At first glance, fast thinking appears to be undisciplined or even lazy – the antithesis of the scientific method. But fast thinking produces creative and intuitive leaps that are impossible with the iterative, deductive, and controlled manner of slow thinking.

Design research both thinking fast, and thinking slow. Thinking fast entails creating novel combinations, unusual interpretations, or unique syntheses. Thinking slow entails systematic evaluation and the structured contribution to a body of knowledge.

Gifted researchers engage in both thinking fast, and thinking slow. As sociologist C. Wright Mills describes, a researcher must have her “files,” which is a set of unstructured, messy, and without order:


C. Wright Mills

“…You will notice that no one project ever dominates [the files], or sets the master categories in which it is arranged. In fact, the use of the file encourages expansion of the categories which you use in your thinking. And the way in which these categories change, some being dropped and others being added – is an index of your intellectual progress and breadth. Eventually, the files will come to be arranged according to several large projects, having many sub-projects that change from year to year. [1, p. 3]”

Anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski echoes this messy disorder when he describes what will eventually become his masterwork The Argonauts of the South Pacific:

malinowskiBranislaw Malinowski

“I estimate that my future publication will be voluminous, roughly three volumes of 500 pages each at 500 words per page. It will take me about two years to get the [manuscript] ready and see it through the press. My material is now a chaotic mass of notes. To work it out and put it into the right theoretical frame is perhaps the most difficult, exacting, and important stage of research. To work it out efficiently I must give it all my time. [2, p. 582]”

Malinowski recognizes the “chaotic mass of notes” must be whipped into shape to become a manuscript, but he must first grapple with the disorder. This is precisely what psychotherapist Rollo May describes as the “creative encounter,” or the unstructured time an artist (or researcher) spends with her subject of study.


Rollo May

“The first thing we notice in a creative act is that it is an encounter. Artists encounter the landscape they propose to paint – they look at it, observe it from this angle and that. They are, as we say, absorbed in itOr scientists confront their experiment, the laboratory task, in a similar situation of encounter.  [3, p. 39] P. 39″

Consider also the “commonplace book,” or the kind of notebook great thinkers like John Locke and Charles Darwin used to organize their thoughts. As innovation author Stephen Johnson tells us, early modern readers did not read sequentially, but jumped around, setting the stage making creative connections.


johnsonSteven Johnson

“The tradition of the commonplace book contains a central tension between order and chaos, between the desire for methodical arrangement, and the desire for surprising new links of association….Each re-reading of the commonplace book becomes a new kind of revelation. [4, pp. 109–110]”

In other words, researchers who allow themselves to read out of order, or to collect without regard for structure, are able to make creative, intuitive leaps. But researchers who fail to methodically manage their knowledge fail to close the loop of production. Researchers need to think fast and to think slow. They need to think broadly and think narrowly. Type 1 and Type 2 thinking translates into 3 kinds of research: exploratory (thinking fast), evaluative (thinking fast and thinking slow), and experimental (thinking slow).

Frequently, social scientists in particular focus on “rigor” as the solution to good research. But rigor without creativity adds little to our collective knowledge.  As Heideggerian scholar Carol Steiner argues, this “fore-structure” – or predetermined way of looking at the world – stops us from conducting innovative research and producing innovative things. Instead, innovative researchers, she found, are open to “Being,” or the ability to have experiences, people, and objects reveal themselves to them.

steinerCarol J. Steiner

“The innovators I studied seemed sometimes to be attuned to that old understanding of the relationship between Being and people…Losing faith in the scientific method has allowed them to understand themselves as other than knowledge-makers. Consequently, they often project an openness that allows them a different world to shine through for them, the public world. “[5, p. 594]

In other words, researchers in particular must struggle against the “fore-structure” or their extensive theoretical and methodological training which interferes with receptivity. As Rollo May argues, being receptive does not mean lacking in rigor.

“The receptivity of the artist [or researcher] must never be confused with passivity. Receptivity is the artist holding him or herself alive and open to hear what being may speak. Such receptivity requires a nimbleness, a fine-honed sensitivity in order to let one’s self be the vehicle of whatever vision may emerge. [3, p. 80]”

Rigor must be introduced later in the process – after the researcher becomes open to a vision, after the researcher grapples with the complexities of the data and their incongruence. Rigor often comes after a period of unconscious processing of the data.  Taking walks, playing, napping, and engaging in unstructured activity have all been shown to allow synthetic ideas to emerge.

Researchers should therefore use the scientific method with caution. Be aware of when you need rigor, and when you need creativity.






[1]      C. W. Mills, The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.

[2]      M. W. Young, Malinowksi: Odyssey of an Anthropologist. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004.

[3]      R. May, The Courage to Create. New York: WW Norton, 1994.

[4]      S. Johnson, Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation. New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2010.

[5]      C. Steiner, “Constructive Science and Technology Studies: On the Path to Being?,” Soc. Stud. Sci., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 583–616, 1999.


The Desirability of Handbags

Handbags, like technology, can become part of your “everyday carry” – if they fit into your everyday life. Sometimes a handbag doesn’t “fit” your lifestyle, but you buy it anyway. Good handbags should be usable, but some very popular handbags are not at all usable. Why do people buy handbags that are hard to use?

In my last post, I outlined the major dimensions of handbag usability. In this post, I describe another “job” people hire handbags to do for them: social signaling. This post might help you avoid buying the wrong bag, but it will also reveal something quite invisible to most folks: consumer products are not pragmatic, functional things, but complex cultural memes that are infused with social meaning. People buy handbags (or phones, or software) not just to carry their stuff, but also to project a desirable image.

Beyond usability: what “job” do you hire your handbag to do?

Some in the user experience community talk about products and objects you “hire” to do a job for you. The Jobs-to-be-done (JTBD) framework is highly influential beyond the UX field; business strategists use it as well.

Using the JTBD framework, we might ask, what do we “hire” handbags to do for us? First, the obvious: we do hire handbags to carry our stuff for us.  But if that’s all that handbags are, we’d all be carrying plastic shopping bags. Something else is going on here. But what?

Here’s Miley Cyrus with a truly stylish white plastic tote and brown plastic jumbo tote.

Many technologists make the mistake that functionality will automatically translate into product love – it doesn’t.  Plastic bags are pretty usable, but they are not at all desirable. Some of the most desirable handbags are not usable at all (I’m looking at you Hermes Kelly bag).  Even unusable handbags will be highly sought after if they effectively project a desirable image.

We “hire” our handbags to tell other people: “This is the kind of person I am.” No amount of Carry-ability will convince me to buy an all-crocodile handbag, for example, because I don’t like killing crocodiles for leather, and, more germanely, I don’t want other people to think I support killing crocodiles. Jane Birkin herself did not like killing crocodiles, and begged Hermes to stop using crocodile leather on their Birkin bag (They did not stop but managed to come to an agreement with Birkin).

Projecting An Image: Handbag as PR Machine

Handbags tell people what kind of person you want them to see in you. Sociologist Erving Goffman called this “impression management”; a handbag is part of the impression you architect.

We “hire” a handbag just like we hire a PR firm to create an image for us. Who can forget the Sex in the City episode where PR executive Samantha bought a Birkin, pretending it was to enhance the image of her client Lucy Liu? Ironically, this is exactly what Samantha was hiring the Birkin bag to do for herself.

Consider the person who might carry each of these bags.  The Kate Spade Mini Simone Satchel is feminine, even child-like, and playful. The Marni shoulder bag is clean, lean, and minimal. The Gucci Babouska Boston Bag is sumptuous, bursting with ornamentation, and brassy in its presentation. Each bag would perform similarly on the Handbag Usability Themes, but they signify very different concepts. Feminine, clean, or sumptuous: people recruit a handbag to project one of those ideas.

A desirable handbag might be so good at projecting just the right image that you might forgive its lack of Search-ability, for example. A slouchy hobo projects one image, while a crisp satchel projects another, as you can see with Ashely and Mary Kate Olson. One of them (I cannot tell which!) carries a classic black Birkin, while the other carries a slouchy Chanel hobo. These two women are literally identical but the handbags project completely different images.

So it’s about money then? Umm, no.

Handbags are more than just usability – we hire them to tell people who we are. Sometimes, people take this to mean simplistically that handbags are “all about money.” You hire a handbag to tell people how rich you are, right? Wrong.

Sure, the most expensive handbag in the world was the Himalayan crocodile Birkin which recently sold in Hong Kong in 2017 for $377,000 USD. But how much a bag costs is not the only signal people want to send. Notably, this particular bag is, you guessed it, made from crocodile leather (Sorry, Jane Birkin).

You are projecting exclusivity. You can’t just walk into a store and buy an Hermes bag, even if you have the money. You have to “know” when they are available. You can’t just pick the most popular bag – you have to know which bag has cache. It’s more than just the price tag, but also the insider knowledge you possess.

This is sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital – we distinguish ourselves with our “good taste.” Good taste is often expensive, but not always. Too many logos? Too obviously expensive, and worse, readily available? How gauche. Handbags rich in cultural capital are exclusive – hard to find, hard to know about, and hard to buy.

Buying the wrong bag: when desirability trumps usability

If you’re like me, you’ve bought The Wrong Bag. The Wrong Bag looks good, and probably was pretty expensive. It probably has some sort of cache, maybe it’s the “it bag” of the season. You think it will enhance your image. But maybe this bag is simply not usable enough. And maybe you bought into someone else’s concept of desirability, instead of your own.

I do this all the time with certain cuts of clothing; I know what works for my silhouette but I conveniently forget it when something is “on trend.” This happens with handbags all the time, like this Celine. I loved the look of the Celine Tricolor Trapeze bag, but it was the least usable handbag I’ve ever used.  It spilled open at the worst of times, was impossible to open, and was hard to carry. I got a lot of compliments on the bag, but when my rental period was over, I was happy to send it back.


Buying the right bag is about making sure it’s usable enough, and projects the image you are curating for yourself.

The Chanel Perfect Edge medium shoulder bag had great grab-ability, and easy carry. I would have preferred the shoulder strap to be a shade shorter, but I did find the handle to more than make up for that. The challenge here was to hold the bag open while carrying it. The handle was great for grabbing, but poor for opening. But just look at this biker sensibility! The chunk of the handle strap gave it an edge (get it?). I actually really liked this bag. It was easy to use and wasn’t too stuffy. Its unusual style compensated for it usability flaws.


The Prada Saffiano tote was high in Grab-ability, and with a pochette performed well on Search-ability. The problem was that it was entirely too big for everyday carry. I put *everything* into this bag, including my laptop. But you can see, it’s a bulky bag. I found myself toting around more than I could carry. As much as I’m a fan of Prada and its image, this bag was not for me.


The Louis Vuitton Alma was, by far, the most usable and desirable handbag I’ve ever used.

Its classic clamshell shape has a pop of patent leather to give it depth, but it still goes with everything. Note that there is also a shoulder strap, which you can use, in a pinch, though I rarely did. The grab-ability of this bag is second to none, and the full-length zipper made this bag so much more usable – I could unzip to the maximum, and find everything I was looking for. The double handle allowed me to hold the bag securely while I was looking, and the shape allowed me to keep the zipper somewhat open without spilling out its contents. But this bag was also desirable because of its black patent sheen and texture, and its brand identity.

Back to the point: what handbags can tell us about tech

Technologists like to think they are engineers, creating engineered products for humans’ technological augmentation. But we know that tech is just like any other product: it must be usable AND desirable. Handbags hit that sweet spot when they are easy to use AND have an element of exclusivity.

Technologists take note: you are fulfilling both functional and emotional needs. Sure, people want their tools to do heavy lifting for them, but they only love products that fulfill a deep emotional need like “project the right image” or “connect to me to my loved ones” or “make me feel safe.”

Products that can fulfill both types of needs are the ones most likely to become both popular and useful. Handbags can teach technologists a lot about product design, but first and foremost, it teaches us that humans are not “rational” beings, but complex, emotional, and culturally aware. Good products fit simply into a complex landscape, provide emotional rewards, and signal culturally appropriate messages.

The Usability of Handbags

What do handbags have to do with technology?

Technology seems exotic, but it’s actually just another new object in our everyday lives. How handbags become part of our “everyday carry” is similar to how technology becomes part of our daily lives. In this series, I’ll examine first the “rational” part of handbags: how well they perform the job of “carrying my stuff.” In later posts, I’ll look at the “irrational” (some might say more human) aspects of choosing things that are really just a pain in the butt to use.

I have always loved luggage and leather goods of all sorts. My favorite gift of my entire childhood was a rattan-and-wood briefcase my aunt gave me when I was 10. I carried that thing to school every day for a year, after which it disintegrated. By the time I was in my 20s, I began an endless search for the “perfect bag.” This was challenging, mostly because I’m cheap but with expensive taste.

My pursuit got a lot easier when my husband began work at Bag, Borrow, or Steal, the handbag rental company (full disclosure: he no longer works there, but many of the links in this post are to BBOS). I was finally able to use as many handbags as I liked, of all sizes, shapes, and even prices. This post is based primarily on that unusual experience of having access to, and regular usage of, a wide variety of handbags. (edit: my second post is about the desirability of handbags).

The Usability of Handbags

Handbags are not just pretty but also workhorses of your “everyday carry.” They can be very expensive, so when you invest in a quality handbag, you want them to “just work.” I have high standards for valuable but good quality accessories, and how they work is one element I consider deeply.

I work as a user experience researcher, which means I help design and evaluate software and hardware products. Usability is a core tenet of quality technology products, and while I’m not a usability lab specialist, I have done my fair share of usability tests for desktop and mobile software, as well as hardware devices and voice-enabled agents like Alexa and Cortana.

I take this experience and apply to handbags, and boy, do you get a different kind of “handbag review.” Handbag reviews online are generally how pretty this thing is, how it looks upon first unboxing, or how rare or expensive the bag is. Rarely – if ever – do reviewers use the bag over a period of time, and evaluate its ease of use. I’ve broken down the key dimensions for what makes a “usable” handbag: Open-ability, Grab-ability, Search-ability, and Carry-ability. I debated including “security” but found its lack only applied to a few bags (I might revisit that).

Qualifying usability

In tech industry circles, usability can be measured in a lot of ways. I myself have used the System Usability Score (SUS) to systematically measure things like system complexity, intelligibility, and ease of use. But that doesn’t work for handbags because “complexity” is not really a problem for handbags. Worse, the SUS is a quantitative measure, which really just saps the beauty, experience, and all the bloody fun out of handbags.

So instead, I describe my Handbag Usability Themes (HUT) which you can use to qualitatively analyze any handbag you’re thinking of buying (or renting!). I can (and very well might) translate this into a Handbag Usability Scale (HUS) at some later date.


How easy is the bag to open? Some bags have complex screws or zippers, while others have no closure at all.  Hobos and totes are two examples of extremely easy to open; many simply have an open top, like this Mansur Gavriel tote. It is as simple as they come – just pull apart the handles.

But the open-ability of this Celine Trapeze bag is terrible. First, it has a clip that you have to turn, carefully¸ in order to open the bag. Then, in order to get the bag full open, you have to flip the cover off. This means that if you’re holding the handle, you will probably drop the bag. In this video of the Trapeze bag, you’ll see that it has to sit on a table to be fully opened. Avoid this like the plague!


Even the classics have Open-ability challenges. Opening this Hermes Kelly bag on the go is all but impossible. And what a shame. Just look at that beautiful bag!

I guess we should all “settle” for a Hermes Birkin instead, because of its dual handle design. Notice how the Birkin hangs on one handle when it’s open (incidentally, this a mouth-watering unboxing video of a new Birkin in the signature Hermes orange) .



How easily can you pick up the bag? Grab-ability is the ease with which you can pick up the bag with one hand. Hard-to-grab bags have a combination of large size and long handles. An example of a hard to grab bag is my Jack Georges Alexis briefcase. Its long handles and large size make it quite challenging to pick up quickly. Note that I can easily grab my BCBG clutch with one hand.

This clutch from Alexander McQueen looks like it’s great for grabbing, but it actually has better Carry-ability. The signature bejeweled brass-knuckle handle is gorgeous, but gets in the way of a quick pick up (don’t get me wrong: this particular bag has been on my radar for a very, very long time; I love the look of this bag).


Carry-ability refers to the comfort and ease with which you can carry the bag, particularly when it’s full. Carry-ability isn’t something you can fully evaluate until you use the bag for an extended period of time. But you should consider the length of the handles (short and long) and the weight of the bag.

Hobos and some totes are generally great for carrying because they are easy to slip over the shoulder. But be careful! Large bags can be filled with everything (like the notorious Louis Vuitton Never Full). Sometimes, you need to carry on your wrist, and here’s where hobos fall a bit short, like with this Balenciaga Sloane Hobo, which will probably break your wrist if you try this when it’s fully filled with your stuff.

Modern minimalist handbag maker Chiyome has two bags that are both high on Carry-ability: a tote and a shoulder bag. The one on the left can be slipped over the shoulder but also has good Grab-ability because of the short handle drop of the shoulder strap. The one of the right has good Carry-ability, but the straps are too long for grabbing. Both have hand holes (is that a word? It’s a strange design), but in practice they are not as “grabby” as handles).

German leathergoods company PB0110 has a shoulder bag that has both good Grab-ability and Carry-ability. The two handles help you grab the bag quickly and carry it for an extended period.

The weight of the bag is another aspect to Carry-ability. Notorious for this is the beautiful, amazing, God-I-have-always-loved-this bag, the small Sac du Jour by Saint Laurent. This bag has such gorgeous architecture (which helps with Search-ability, see below), and its classic design will never go out of style.

BUT, and this is a big but, the bag is heavy AF (2.6 lbs, totally empty). That weight, plus the lack of the a useful shoulder strap all but guarantees that you will find this bag low on Carry-ability.


This is probably the most annoying part of an unusable bag: never being able to find anything. Generally speaking, the larger the bag, the worse the search-ability.

Hobos are terrible for Search-ability because of their slouchy style and lack of architecture. The Mansur Graviel tote was so easy to carry, but it was basically a big empty sac, which made finding anything impossible.

Some handbag designers attempt to solve this by including built-in card slots, pen holders, and the like. Purses with built-in wallets are over-kill, however, because every time you change your bag, you must manually remove your cards and other items. A Search-able handbag allows for some organization, but not too much.

Pochettes are a good solution for a large-empty bag, like the one that came with my Celine Lefebure Alice bag.


In part two of the this series, I’ll review some of the bags I’ve had, and how usable they were, including Celine, Chanel, Prada, and Louis Vuitton. I’ll also talk about why none of this usability seems to matter (emphasis on the “seems”) when people talk about the It Bag of the Season or the Bag That Got Away.

Why Machine Learning isn’t about machines

How will machine learning change us as a society? It’s now time to ask this question — before we start building products and services that have unintended consequences.

I wanted to start this blog post by referencing “the turn of the the last century.” I realized that would put me smack dab in the middle of the Y2K hysteria, and not in the birth of bureaucracy (whence such hysteria came).

No, we only know what the “turn of the century” means, many years in retrospect. Now, we can look back on the year 1900 and see quite clearly that its significance was the shift from idiosyncratic, family-run, and sometimes chaotic organizations toward professional management, and of course, bureaucracy.

It was hard to see while it was happening, but Max Weber saw it (perhaps that’s why he had a nervous breakdown). Weber saw that we had begun to run our businesses and governments with standardized rules, and standardized hierarchies. No longer could the boss’s son waltz in and tell everyone what to do, unless he had an actual job title. (Well, that was the idea anyway; we apparently still let the boss’s kids take jobs they’re not qualified for).

This was radically new and had huge implications for how we purchase, exchange, work, and live. Bureaucracy became the irrationally rational norm; rules were to be followed even if they made no sense.

Which brings me to machine learning. Machines can learn if we give them the tools to learn, and the data to help them practice. But they cannot see what Max Weber saw. Machines cannot know they are creating an irrational bureaucratic hellscape — and nor would they care. They are very good at things humans are bad at, namely, vigilance and repetitive tasks. We should let them do those things.

But we should not let machines make decisions about rules, about whether the boss’s son is qualified, or other culturally and socially important questions. At the turn of this century, we are making machines that can do all of those things, but we are not pausing to evaluate whether we should.

Historians like to say that the 19th century did not really end on the arbitrary date of December 31, 1899, but instead on the more auspicious and socially meaningful date of November 11, 1918. It was only then that humanity realized what its changes had wrought, what horrors we had invented, and that humans themselves must take responsibility for those changes. I would argue we need to do the same now, before an equally socially meaningful date in the future.

Why Cortana doesn’t work at work

Microsoft is betting that Cortana will bring AI to the workplace. Here’s why that won’t happen.

Cortana is an intelligent agent  that is supposed to act as a personal assistant. You can interact with her (notice I said “her”? More on that in a minute) via voice or text, on mobile devices or on desktop computers. Given that Microsoft’s mobile market share has fallen below 1%, it’s pretty much a certainty that most people would interact with Cortana in their offices.

We know that most Windows 10 computers are in workplaces, so there’s a very strong likelihood that people will talk to Cortana in an office. This is very different place than where people might interact with Siri on their phones, or Alexa in their homes. Siri and Alexa t are called upon in private, controlled places (in fact, just 3% of iOS users report using Siri in public).

Let’s walk through that interaction of Cortana as a member of a workplace.

Microsoft encourages you to command Cortana by saying, “Hey Cortana…” and then giving her a command. A typical office scenario might be, “I wonder if I should book a vacation for the first week of August. Hmm. I’ll ask Cortana.”

This is how Cortana is supposed to work:

User: Hey Cortana, should I book a vacation for the first week of August?

Cortana: Let me check your calendar. Looks like you have a meeting on Monday, August 1st. Should I move it for you?

User: Yes, that’d be great.

Cortana: Okay, I’ve moved that meeting to Monday August 8th. Would you like to see some vacation suggestions?

User: Yes, please!

This is exactly how it plays out on a demo video one Microsoft’s site.

But let’s face it: there are a lot of contextually dependent reasons why this is completely unrealistic. Leaving aside Cortana’s technical limitations for the moment (and there are many), let’s take a look at what a real office and real user might look like.

Most offices are either open concept without even the suggestion of walls. As many as 70% of us work in open concept offices. As anyone who’s worked in such an office can tell you, hearing a neighbor on the phone can be excruciatingly annoying or excruciatingly awkward, depending on your neighbor’s TMI quotient.


So there’s a good chance that everyone in the user’s office will hear this idealized scenario.  There are two clear disincentives against this happening. First, Cortana will make more “boundary work” for office workers. The mere act of trying to keep your private life private at work is turns out to be, well, work. Recent research  has found that keeping work and life private actually causes cognitive overload. If people use Cortana as intended, she is poised to make that much worse.

Second, Cortana demands office workers treat their workplaces as if they were kings and queens, instead of pawns and rooks. Voice interactions require workers to own their workspace, something that we know they do not do. Typical workers share their workspaces with others, and because we are apt social animals, we tend to comply with unwritten rules of workplace etiquette. Bosses’ calendars take precedence over workers’ calendars. Bosses talk more than workers. Men talk more than women. In other words, people with power talk out loud more than people with less power.

Which brings me to the fact that Cortana is a woman. Is it any coincidence that most intelligent agents today are anthropomorphized as women? One of the most striking changes in the twentieth century workplace was the almost total elimination of support staff, which were typically women. Only the most senior executives have assistants nowadays, and other mid-level white collar workers are on their own for scheduling  and administrative work.

cortana 02

Let’s not forget that Cortana is actually based on a supportive AI character in a video game. Cortana provides these workers with a sense that they can indeed recoup the times of Mad Men and have a compliant, supportive, and self-abnegating assistant who has no needs of her own. Practically, this promises white-collar workers with a huge productivity boost, but the symbolic nature of this is even more interesting. When white-collar workers have a virtual assistant, they have re-claimed a sense of hierarchy, of control, and power (even if it is completely imaginary).

And this is why Cortana will not work in the workplace. Today’s typical office worker does not have power enough to command the space around her, and bark orders to anyone out loud, even if just to an intelligent agent. This office worker has been stripped of her ability to occupy a rung on the ladder higher than admin or support staff, because there is no admin or support staff. This typical office worker is embedded in a physical space that reflects this lack of hierarchical position — she has no command over it.

Scholars of gender and technology have described some ill-advised approaches to gender equality as “add women and stir.” The same applies to Cortana and other intelligent agents. You cannot “add Cortana and stir” and expect to see productivity improvements that somehow negate the existing organizational and physical structures of contemporary workplaces.