My graduate degree was in Human Factors Psychology. The program prepared me for a lot of things, but one thing it did not prepare me for was to be a good designer. The program was (and I assume, still is) very much a research-driven track, focused on instilling over a century of research in psychology and other subjects in its students. The user testing I did trained me in formal experimental practices. I learned about writing strict protocols, setting up variable controlled environments, running enough subjects for validity, and computing statistical significance on the variables of interest.
I did take some more practical, work-related courses, including one in display design, but I largely got a heaping does of what my friend Kyle calls “Designology”. I learned theories about design, but got little hands-on experience towards actually designing. This put me in a disadvantaged position when I started my career, since I was very poor when it came to designing anything.
This was the only design school experience I had, so I can’t directly compare it to other programs with first hand knowledge. However, talking with designers from other programs, I got a sense that they received a very different experience. When discussing graduate school, I heard a lot of stories of hands-on experience, not just on class assignments, but on projects for actual companies, with actual needs. These people were solving real problems - designing applications for large, multi-national organizations. They learned the process of User Experience, including how to do User Research as typically practiced in the field. They learned the practice of design, and it positioned them well coming out of school to be fairly effective on day 1 of their first job.
There is a big difference in these two approaches. While my future colleagues were learning ‘how’ to design, I was learning the ‘why’ behind design. They were better prepared on Day 1 than I was, but when I started to learn how to design (on the job), my background knowledge grounded me in theory to help me understand why a given solution might be successful or unsuccessful. This was valuable since it gave me a reasoned approach that allowed me to eliminate or consider options quickly (e.g., almost never using pie charts). Although that doesn’t eliminate the need for user research, it does help narrow the scope of the research. In reality, I had done a large chunk of user research already – but this research was on a general understanding of how people work. This research is broadly applicable and not project specific, which is very powerful.
Now, I do believe that both graduate school approaches have something to offer. A blended model of the two approaches could be very powerful. Yes, the theoretical underpinnings of design have proven very useful, but I would have gladly learned less about non-parametric statistics and more about putting together good journey maps or conducting large-group brainstorming sessions. My ideal program would have taught me more about graphical and visual design to go along with the emphasis on perceptual psychology and understanding how the eyes and ears work. I would have learned to use colors to impact mood in addition to knowing what colors the eye is most receptive to (green). This list could go on. Both program types have valuable lessons to teach.
It is very difficult to start out in the field (Information Architecture, UI Design, or Interaction Design) without having learned how to design. At the same time, I would argue that excelling within the field of User Experience requires ‘Designology’ to understand how people really work. Without it, each and every designer is forced to relearn centuries of research on the job based on the project needs, which is time consuming and costly. And few designers get the budget to perform that kind of research on a project.
Although I rued it at the beginning of my career, I am glad my education unfolded the way it did. I enjoyed learning theory in grad school, and I had the opportunity to learn good user-centered design on the job. If the order was reversed, I can imagine it being very difficult to try to pick up on theory and psychological underpinnings as my career progressed. It’s not impossible - far from it. But for me, it was the right order. It forced me to learn the 'why', even though I thought I only wanted to learn 'how'.
I did take some more practical, work-related courses, including one in display design, but I largely got a heaping does of what my friend Kyle calls “Designology”. I learned theories about design, but got little hands-on experience towards actually designing. This put me in a disadvantaged position when I started my career, since I was very poor when it came to designing anything.
This was the only design school experience I had, so I can’t directly compare it to other programs with first hand knowledge. However, talking with designers from other programs, I got a sense that they received a very different experience. When discussing graduate school, I heard a lot of stories of hands-on experience, not just on class assignments, but on projects for actual companies, with actual needs. These people were solving real problems - designing applications for large, multi-national organizations. They learned the process of User Experience, including how to do User Research as typically practiced in the field. They learned the practice of design, and it positioned them well coming out of school to be fairly effective on day 1 of their first job.
There is a big difference in these two approaches. While my future colleagues were learning ‘how’ to design, I was learning the ‘why’ behind design. They were better prepared on Day 1 than I was, but when I started to learn how to design (on the job), my background knowledge grounded me in theory to help me understand why a given solution might be successful or unsuccessful. This was valuable since it gave me a reasoned approach that allowed me to eliminate or consider options quickly (e.g., almost never using pie charts). Although that doesn’t eliminate the need for user research, it does help narrow the scope of the research. In reality, I had done a large chunk of user research already – but this research was on a general understanding of how people work. This research is broadly applicable and not project specific, which is very powerful.
Now, I do believe that both graduate school approaches have something to offer. A blended model of the two approaches could be very powerful. Yes, the theoretical underpinnings of design have proven very useful, but I would have gladly learned less about non-parametric statistics and more about putting together good journey maps or conducting large-group brainstorming sessions. My ideal program would have taught me more about graphical and visual design to go along with the emphasis on perceptual psychology and understanding how the eyes and ears work. I would have learned to use colors to impact mood in addition to knowing what colors the eye is most receptive to (green). This list could go on. Both program types have valuable lessons to teach.
It is very difficult to start out in the field (Information Architecture, UI Design, or Interaction Design) without having learned how to design. At the same time, I would argue that excelling within the field of User Experience requires ‘Designology’ to understand how people really work. Without it, each and every designer is forced to relearn centuries of research on the job based on the project needs, which is time consuming and costly. And few designers get the budget to perform that kind of research on a project.
Although I rued it at the beginning of my career, I am glad my education unfolded the way it did. I enjoyed learning theory in grad school, and I had the opportunity to learn good user-centered design on the job. If the order was reversed, I can imagine it being very difficult to try to pick up on theory and psychological underpinnings as my career progressed. It’s not impossible - far from it. But for me, it was the right order. It forced me to learn the 'why', even though I thought I only wanted to learn 'how'.