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:

mills

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.

may

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.

 

 

 

 

References

[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.

 

Microsoft’s Future Productivity Vision

At long last, I am able to share our work on the future of productivity. Video storytelling is a way of envisioning the future without the constraints of actually building all the prototypes. These conceptual prototypes cover a few important themes. Look for:

  • The end of the full-time job
  • Inter-generational care work, via distance
  • Online reputation management
  • Networked production of several enterprises and individuals
  • Just-in-time work spaces and places
  • Mobile productivity and seamless integration with traditional computing systems
  • Visualizing production through social network analysi

 

Productivity: it ain’t about being faster

If you tell people you build productivity technology, they often think of assembly lines, conveyor belts, and stopwatches. Productivity means building things faster, right? Wrong. That view is so 20th century. Today, the real problem workers have is finding collaborative spaces to share information. Right now, our productivity tools often make even more work. Instead, we should build tools that emulate face-to-face interactions instead of assembly lines.

 

Ford_assembly_line_-_1913

 

Doing things faster was indeed a problem for early industrial times. Production was slow, inconsistent, and riddled with errors. Engineer F. W. Taylor’s “scientific management” emerged as a solution to this problem. Taylor, a probable obsessive compulsive, devoted his life to finding “one best way” to do everything. He also gave managers everywhere an excuse to control workers more tightly.

But today, we already have high-quality production. Systems like six sigma and lean production have standardized and stripped down production processes to the leanest, and most consistent elements. Innovation isn’t about “being faster,” but helping workers collaborate and share.

Why does collaboration matter more than ever?

Today’s products are complex. Rarely can only a single discipline design, build, and market a product. You need designers, engineers, and marketers to be truly successful. But this means they have to coordinate schedules, share information, and share their expertise. They need tools to store information, to build trust, to smooth cultural divides, and to protect heads-down time.

The Collaboration Penalty

Collaboration means working together, but also it ironically makes more work.

  1. Managing workflow: Who will do what, and when? This is especially difficult in heterogeneous, disparate, or physically distributed teams. Typical tasks include scheduling and task allocation.
  1. Creating shared information spaces: Creating, sharing, distributing, maintaining, and finding shared artifacts. Typical tasks include sharing via email or dropbox.
  1. Moving work products between collaborative spaces and individual spaces: Removing artifacts from shared spaces to complete an individual task, and replacing them into shared spaces. Typical tasks include checking in or out documents or code.

These three large buckets can overlap. For example, allocating tasks in a co-located team may mean simply writing down assignments on a white board. But in teams distributed by time or space will need to create a shared, digital artifact that summarizes these task allocations.

The irony is that as teams collaborate more, they create ever more shared digital artifacts, which increases the need for shared information spaces, and increases the cognitive load of evaluating whether a work product is ready to share.

collab

 

Strategies for the Collaboration Penalty

Our typical approaches for dealing with the collab penalty are no longer working. We have tried structured ontologies, or taxonomies. But it’s always so much faster to just talk with a person directly. That doesn’t scale. Informal ways are more powerful, and make less work.

Formal Ways to Pay Collaboration Penalty Informal Ways to Pay Collaboration Penalty
Standardization of procedures or inputs

Formalized roles or responsibilities

Conceptual schema, such as taxonomies, ontologies, or other standard concepts

“Bodywork” or physical proximity

Informal communication

High-fidelity shared objects, like posters, prototypes, and whiteboards

IM, Skype, or real-time tech communication

Instead we should use things like handwritten notes — in digital form — to give more fidelity to our messages.

Human practices are far swifter and culturally adept than most technologies. This is the primary reason why work teams choose face-to-face strategies, even if they seem duplicative; informal strategies are higher in fidelity than structures or standardization.

Identity management: the future of privacy?

The nature of privacy of is changing.  This should come as no surprise to anyone, since the pace of technological change has rapidly outpaced our existing social and legal norms.

Some have argued that privacy is now a right reserved only for the rich. This story of the Seattle City Light company reinforces that view. According to the Seattle Times, City Light’s contract with Brand.com to manage its image focused more on CEO Jorge Carrasco’s personal Google results than on the company itself.

Jorge Carrasco

Seattle City Light paid Brand.com $17,500 for the contract, which focused on expunging a particular Seattle Weekly article from Google search results.

In particular, the records show, Carrasco was aggravated by a negative Seattle Weekly article from 2008 that kept popping up in search results about him. As late as last month, Carrasco and a top aide were exploring whether they could get the piece expunged from Google entirely.

 

That original story focused on Carrasco’s high-handed management style, and argued that he “decimated employee morale,” and revealed his nickname as “Jorge Fiasco.”

On the surface, this story appears to be about misuse of public money for personal use. But digger deeper, what it is really about is two things.

  1. Identity management is work: I have found repeatedly in my research on productivity that individuals are increasingly tasked with achieving, monitoring, and policing their online images. This kind of work is increasing in scope and effort.
  2. Privacy is for the rich: because reputation management is increasing in its scope and effort required, privacy itself is now a job. Obviously in this context, those with means can better marshal resources to protect their identities. Individuals without time, resources or skill to manage their identities will have a more difficult time.

In short, we are seeing productivity increasingly involving improving one’s image. Tools like Social Sweeper are already offering resume “cleaning” services — to those who can afford it.

When will more traditional productivity tools offer the same services? And how much will they cost?