What does this all mean for us in the context of this class? It means that we need to acknowledge that we’re following a model of inquiry that has some inherent flaws, many of which are exacerbated by the cultural significance design thinking has come to assume.

We’re progressing through the package of steps linearly because this is an introductory course, and the steps are what makes this process accessible to students and newcomers. It’s especially helpful in this class because..

…we’re moving fast. It’s an accelerated course! That’s a constraint we can’t do anything about.

In being fast and linear, we’re being designer-centric. The intent of this course is not for you to solve a problem; it’s for you to learn about problem-solving. That creates kind of a funny paradox between what we’re learning and why we’re learning it.

And lastly, in being designer-centric, we’re not being especially human-centric. Again, we’re students: we’re applying a potentially high-stakes process in a safe, low-stakes learning environment. Our various constraints in this context mean that it’s unlikely your project groups will be able to work extensively with research participants. It’s possible your user research will come exclusively from secondary sources, and it’s certain that your final user testing will be replaced by a peer review. However you troubleshoot around constraints is fine, as long as you proactively and transparently acknowledge conceptual gaps in your final project delivery. Whatever your involvement with research participants winds up looking like for this project, know as you move forward academically and professionally that working with people is something to take seriously. If you’re interested in learning more about this, here are a few articles I recommend. This is just suggested reading, not required coursework, but if you can’t get to it now you should save it for sometime in the future!

• Marketade Director of Client Impact. (2020, June 11). Why User Researchers Should Care About Informed Consent. Medium. https://medium.com/marketade/why-user-researchers-should-care-about-informed-consent-1cd8e401793f.
• Mortensen, D. H. (2021). Conducting Ethical User Research. The Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/conducting-ethical-user-research.
• Rubin, P. E. (2019, May 2). Modernizing the Human Subjects Regulations. The Regulatory Review. https://www.theregreview.org/2019/05/02/rubin-modernizing-human-subjects-regulations/.
• Sten, A. (2019, October 14). It’s Time for a Code of Ethics for Designers. Medium. https://modus.medium.com/designer-ethics-the-moral-implications-of-our-apps-f1d6bdb276e.

References

• Clarke, R. I. (2020). Design Thinking. ALA Neal-Schuman.
• Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: smart machines, dumb humans, and the myth of technological perfectionism. Perseus Books.
• Pinkston, Russel. (2019). Decolonizing Design. https://russpinkston.com/wp-content/uploads/RPinkston_DecolonizingDesign-web.pdf