Design Research at a Crossroads: Rebalancing Technology and the Human Experience

It’s always a pleasure to meet with Norio Fujikawa, whom I have known for almost 30 years now. We worked together at Fitch and have collaborated on several projects since we left Fitch. Over lunch today, we discussed the evolving design marketplace, the influence of technology, and the importance of maintaining focus on the human aspect of design. Our conversation inspired me to reflect on the past 30 years of my experience as a design researcher – five years at Fitch and 25 years at SonicRim. My aim in this retrospection was to identify the projects that brought me the most satisfaction.

I must admit that in the early years, I enjoyed using research methods and tools based on the “what they say, what they do, what they make” framework developed by Dr. Liz Sanders. There was a lot of joy in witnessing people unveil stories from their past or bring deep-seated thoughts to the surface. However, as I look back today, my criteria for personal satisfaction have changed. My current criteria for satisfaction involve enjoying working on the project, delivering value to clients, and generating insights to help them deliver value to people in the real world.

The projects that fulfilled these specific criteria possessed the following shared characteristics:

1. Clients were interested in gaining deep insights about psychology, sociology, or behavioral patterns associated with an unfamiliar demographic, culture, or environment.
2. The inquiry was open-ended, focusing on exploration rather than validating a hypothesis.
3. The client team working on the projects was open-minded and eager to learn.
4. The project leader from the client side possessed strong interpersonal skills to effectively communicate the insights gained from the project and the determination to diplomatically escalate them to the leadership.
5. Not all projects that met my satisfaction criteria revolved around the application of disruptive technologies; rather, they centered on unraveling the nuances of human experience (past, present, and future) and broader social impact.
6. Clients were open to discussing the necessary time for observation, synthesis, and learning from the project at the appropriate pace, instead of pressuring for results within an aggressive timeline.
7. Clients were eager to join us in the field, participating in in-field synthesis of insights, providing ample time to organize data and discuss patterns, and ensuring a larger team within the organization committed to participating in regular synthesis and insight translation meetings and workshops.

The design research marketplace has experienced significant changes in recent times:

1. Technology companies and organizations harnessing technologies for innovative products and experiences have arguably become the primary sponsors of design research services. Consequently, research questions have become more tactical, focusing on technology or products rather than people, behaviors, culture, or society.
2. Prevailing industry terms such as “user,” “user experience design,” or “User Experience Research” (UXR) are shaping companies’ mental models, treating people as mere targets rather than active participants in the design process.
3. Non-tech generative research stories no longer receive the same attention within the design research community as they once did. In the past, meaningful projects I enjoyed have often involved studying behaviors and mental models around non tech subjects like frozen yogurt, history museums, paper napkins, family communication, work postures, music consumption, cooking cultures and behaviors, sleep, relaxation behaviors, learning experiences, and patient experience.
4. With the advent of generative AI, companies appear to be redirecting investments to fast-paced projects emphasizing near-term product development.

In response to these changes, the following actions are needed today:

1. Treating people as active participants in the design process rather than passive subjects of studies.
2. Reverting to increased investments in appropriately-paced and ongoing studies of people, cultures, and change.
3. Empowering designers and researchers who prioritize people and society to drive projects that require critical consideration of the human experience of life, instead of focusing solely on the human experience of technologies.

I hope that the current trend of lean and tactical research proves to be only a temporary phase and that mindfulness will guide companies to conduct due diligence in design research, ensuring the best outcomes for both people and society.