I was recently approached by Jen Polk, a historian who now writes a blog on leaving academia. Jen asked me to do a Q & A about my experience leaving the academy and entering industry. I was happy to oblige. One of the major problems with academia is the miserable groupthink that goes on. As I told Jen:
Think about how narrow their experience is and how little they know about the world. Then spend a minute imagining doing what you like to do, be it researching, writing, lecturing, teaching or doing analysis, or even something completely different. Then imagine all the other places in the world that kind of work happens. Yes, you can leave the university and yes, you can be happy.
I’m happy to share my experiences because I genuinely want others to recover from the trauma that academia leaves on their souls. Yes, I said trauma.
Some of you may know me as a corporate researcher, doing research studies for private-sector clients. Others may know me as an academic researcher, doing studies to publish in academic journals. I am actually both kinds of researcher, and have had an extremely difficult time occupying both realms.
That is, until now.
I have found probably the only place on Earth where I can do rigorous, academically informed socio-cultural research into technology that will actually impact the design of that technology. That place is Microsoft. More specifically, it’s at Microsoft’s head office in Redmond, Washington.
This is where I have found myself since November 5. The day after, my friend Barack did me a solid by agreeing to continue as President for 4 more years (thanks also to the people of Washington State for voting for marriage equality and a little fun on the side).
I’m working in the Envisioning team at Microsoft Office, researching changes to the social world that involve how and in what ways we use technology. My research will lead to the future vision of Microsoft Office, a product that currently has over 500 million users worldwide. Yes, you read that right. It’s an amazing opportunity to take all my scholarly training and make a difference in the world. I’m under no illusion that working at Microsoft means that I can now fix everything that’s wrong with technology (far from it!) but I also know that I’ll have a hell of a lot more impact than I would working at a university. I’m also delighted to say that I plan to never attend a faculty meeting (suck it, haters).
Ryan and I have signed a lease on a house in the Queen Anne neighborhood, and when I say “Ryan and I,” I really mean just me. Ryan’s still home back in Toronto, closing down our life there. As I write, we have a conditional offer on house, which (fingers crossed) should close soon.Ryan and HollyCat will jump on a plane and join me here for Christmas.
My company Copernicus will continue to exist, at least on paper. It is a corporation, after all, and not a person. Or maybe I got that backwards.
The last 2 weeks have been a blur and the future has yet to become clear. But please wish us well in this adventure in the Wilds of Washington State.
This blog is about technology design and social interaction. The content is more scholarly in nature and therefore is infrequently updated. I also blog more frequently on my company blog, Copernicus Consulting. I also have some guest posts on Ethnography Matters.
A recent study on electronic medical records (EMRs) found that they may not fulfill the promise of lowered health-care costs. This study, and the reaction to it, illustrates much of what is wrong with technology studies, and the unintended social effects of technology itself.
Many technology studies have false ideas of how web and interaction designers actually work. We collectively tend to think of technology as a “fix” that “automagically” eliminates “waste,” even if this is not the intent of the designers themselves (which it frequently isn’t). But as this study points out, there are far more subtle and nuanced issues relating to technology. Specifically, technology makes it easier to do some things. Is it any surprise we end up expecting more things to be done?
Let me illustrate with EMRs.
Researchers from Harvard Medical School found that the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) is actually correlated with a higher number of diagnostic tests, such as MRIs, which in turn implies higher — not lower — health-care costs.
The authors suggest:
These findings raise the possibility that, as currently implemented, electronic access does not decrease test ordering in the office setting and may even increase it, possibly because of system features that are enticements to ordering.
This study was a quantitative analysis of medical records so did not offer any insight into why there are more tests ordered with EMRs. The authors can only speculate that the easy availability of imaging results translates into more tests being ordered. The “enticements” to order more tests could be built into the EMR systems themselves.
Anyone who has worked in interaction design will tell you that “enticement” is precisely the kind of emotion they want their users to feel. Take, for example, Stephen Anderson’s research on on “emotional design.” Anderson argues that web and application design should be “seductive” to really be successful. Trevor van Gorp also argues that designers should be aspiring to connect “affectively” with their users, and to tap into deeply held emotional experiences.
Both Anderson and van Gorp have written and spoken extensively to the user experience designer. Their ideas are au courant in the web and application design community. It is likely that some members of that community have read van Gorp’s book or use Anderson’s psychology inspired “mental note” cards in their design practice. It is just as likely that some of these people have designed the very EMR systems that strive to, surprise surprise, “entice” physicians to order and view diagnostic tests.
Physicians are responding to a design philosophy, which is to extract from users a deep engagement. “Good” interaction design is usable, but also engaging. Instead of boring users, contemporary web and application designers are “seducing” them. Indeed, good interaction design, according to industry leader the Nielsen Norman Group, includes the principle of “explorable interfaces.” How is it any surprise at all that physicians are “exploring the interface” by ordering more tests? Good systems are designed to entice them to do exactly that.
In their story covering the Harvard study’s findings, the New York Times reports that other researchers disagree with the conclusions. The Times reports:
Dr. David J. Brailer, who was the national coordinator for health information technology in the administration of George W. Bush, said he was unconvinced by the study’s conclusions because they were based on a correlation in the data and were not the result of a controlled test.
Dr. Brailer doubts the conclusions because he does not understand how design is currently practiced, nor does he have direct input into the design principles of EMRs. If EMRs are being designed according to current ideas, they are designed not to save money, as Dr. Brailer hopes, but to entice users to explore and be engaged. Dr. Brailer clings to his scientific method here, and rightly points out that correlation does not equal causation. However, the Harvard researchers are more in tune with current design practices.
I don’t mean to knock interaction designers. Heck, some of my best friends are interaction designers! No, really. What I’m saying here is that designers design to principles. A laudable principle is to “seduce” or emotionally affect the user. This principle creates great systems. But it results in more use of systems, not less. It should come as no surprise that imaging tests represent a “seduction” for physicians, who, like all scientists, are voracious consumers of “more data.”
This case study reminds me of how we so frequently miss the mark in understanding technology. We assume it will be “efficient,” without asking how it might actually work. Worse, we routinely ignore the normative shifts that come along with cheaper and easier labour. Take, for example, house-keeping technology. We believed that the vacuum cleaner, the washing machine and the dishwasher would lead to more leisure time. What it actually lead to was higher standards of cleanliness.
Will EMRs lead to “higher standards” of imaging desire among physicians? Perhaps they already have.