Primary Source Research in Design
Primary source research can be defined as first-hand experience or evidence about a topic. According to Princeton University's website, primary sources include original documents such as diaries, manuscripts, letters, or interviews, whereas secondary sources include textbooks, magazine articles, commentaries, and encyclopaedias.[1] Primary sources are crucial during the design process because they provide invaluable first-hand experience which inevitably alters the final outcome of any design. Primary source research can be conducted through demographic and psychographic statistics, questionnaires, surveys, interviews, workshops, user reviews, and observations.
Primary source research can be divided into two categories: quantitative and qualitative.[2] Both are equally important factors in design research. Quantitative research is more factual. It relies heavily on the objectivity that statistics and observations provide. Qualitative research is more concerned with solving problems on an individual-case basis. It provides a deep understanding of a situation by using the personal experiences of a user as a research basis. The advantage of quantitative research is that it removes emotional bias towards an experiment and is not affected by a user's personal experience. However, it is not always able to provide enough detailed information to understand why or how a certain problem develops. For this situation, qualitative research is extremely valuable. For example, statistics could reveal that more black phones were sold than white phones, however only through qualitative research – by interviewing users – could an accurate conclusion be made as to why the black phones were preferred. However, relying solely on qualitative research could result in completely inaccurate conclusions and also lacks the ability to give a clear overall picture. Both sources need to be investigated for accurate solutions.
Now that I have defined what primary research consists of, I will address its importance in product design. Consumer's needs can be divided into two categories: rational and non-rational.[3] The rational needs consist of the product's practicality or function. The non-rational is concerned with the aesthetic appearance or emotional response to the product. Both are equally important factors in a product's design. A product's emotional effect on its consumer could potentially determine its market-acceptance. Baby's toys' are an example of products which are equally concerned with the functional and emotional needs of its consumers. For example, a toy must fulfil the needs of making a personal connection with the child, as well as as providing something soothing to chew on for growing teeth. A product's personality is just as important as its functionality. Rational needs are assumed to be self-evident, however a designer's familiarity with a product becomes a hindrance in objectively analysing a product's performance. Extensive research needs to be done in order to understand the emotional stimulation and physical needs of the target consumer. This type of research must be obtained through primary sources because the consumers have unique responses to the designs. Culture plays an important role in consumer Often, designers themselves do not belong to the same age, social, or ethnic group as their consumers.
With new products, customers are often not able to express their needs, because they are not aware of the possible solutions to these problems. One example of this is the OXO Goodgrips kitchen designs. By focusing on supplying the needs of disabled users, the designers inadvertently innovated products which benefited all users – both disabled and non-disabled.[4] They conducted meticulous, first-hand analyses of the interactions of disabled users with their product at various stages of its design. In this case, the importance of primary research was crucial, because many of the handicaps which disabled people face are overlooked during the design process. The exaggerated needs of people with disabilities also made apparent the slight inconveniences in design which users had long been living with.
Successful product innovation is an ongoing research that requires consumers to gradually build on knowledge of that product.[5] The interface design of the first iPhone would have been addressed completely different than the latest iPhone, since users have since become accustomed to certain methods of product interaction. The evolution of certain symbols and menus throughout the products' development, for example, require familiarity with the interface in order to be understood. Showing a recycle arrow-symbol, for example, to people from a remote tribe would result in confusion. Many interfaces, such as how computers operate with a taskbar and window system, have gradually evolved to become self-evident. Certain magazine logos and symbols representing software or social media have become so interconnected with our modern culture that they have become self-explanatory. Facebook, twitter, and google are just a few examples of social media that use widely recognised symbols. This is an important reason why research needs to be consumer-specific. Secondary reviews of these interface designs do not account for the problems faced by users not familiar with the product.
Consumer perception is another aspect of design that impacts its success. When Sony introduced the AIBO robots – a companion robot dog for the family home – it was received with limited success in the United States.[6] The reason for this was the consumer's lack of understanding of the product.[7] Sony considered changing the product's appearance from a dog to a human hoping to alter the consumer's perception of the product from a toy to a companion.[8] This is another case where primary research is fundamental. Designers need to take surveys to understand their consumer's perception of a product. In such a case, statistics could only provide information about lack of sales, but qualitative research, such as questionnaires or user reviews, could explain the reason for the product's confusion.
Design research helps process the various contributing factors of a complex problem. Often, there is no single solution to every problem. Take for example the seemingly simple issue of homelessness. This is not necessarily a design issue because the houses are inhabitable or that they are too costly. Statistics are unable to reveal the deeper issues behind such a problem. They would only reveal the number of homeless people or from which age group they are. Qualitative research is the only way to break down the complexity of such a problem. This research needs to be conducted through first-hand investigations or interviews. Identifying these people's needs provides a starting point, but further investigation into their social and psychological background is the only way to bring to light the deeper causes. Secondary research such as studies about homeless people cannot account for their personal experiences. Statistics indicate that 39% of homelessness was among young people who were literate and had a proper education.[9] As a result, statistics showing job loss in relation to homelessness cannot explain the reason behind the youth's homelessness. Research found that half of all homelessness was among women and children due to domestic violence, alcohol, or drugs.[10] This research comes from primary sources – by investigating the personal accounts and experiences of these people. Therefore, the problem has shifted from one of homelessness to that of drugs and domestic violence. The solution for these individuals would take an entirely different approach. The design problem here is qualitative, not quantitative.
One of the main negatives of secondary research is that it is usually outdated. In areas such as game development it is crucial to understand popular public demand. The public's perception will change once they experience the new games that the competition will release. It is crucial for a company to conduct primary research to uncover not only the public's desires for the new product, but also what the competition might be offering. Investigating what was successful, as well as what might be unique can be a strong advantage for designers. Companies may benefit from adopting a technology that is entirely different from what the market has to offer.[11] The new generation of youth that will start using their product will have an entirely different social view than the previous generation. They will be stimulated in different ways. Social change will inevitably effect how the new product is perceived. Therefore it is fundamental that the design for the product be based on primary source research.
To summarise, the benefits of primary source research greatly outweighs secondary research. It allows the manufacturer to solve specific existing issues as well as envision new, greater directions their product could take. Primary research is often the only way to uncover solutions to complex problems. Elusive issues such as public perception of a product cannot be resolved without first-hand investigation. The way in which some products build upon prior knowledge relies heavily on intensive research of those users. Primary research also allows a designer to accurately predict the direction the marketplace will take. It gives a clear background about the consumer's desires. These issues are extremely hard to resolve through secondary sources, because they lack the specific approach which is needed to fully understand the problem. Only through proper primary research can a designer fully resolve all aspects of a design problem.
[1]"What is Primary Source?," Princeton University, accessed April 6, 2014, https://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html.
[2]William A. Firestone, "Meaning in Method: The Rhetoric of Quanittative and qualittative Research," Educational Researcher16, no. 7 (1987): 16-21.
[3]Knut Holt, "Need Assessment in Product Innovation," International Studies of Management & Organization 6, no. 4 (1976-77): 26-44.
[4]Bess Williamson, "Getting a Grip: Disability in American Industrial Design of the Late Twentieth Century," Winterthur Portfolio46, no. 4 (2012): 213-236.
[5]Violina P. Rindova and Antoaneta P. Petkova, "When Is a New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Chance, Product Form Design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innovations," Organization Science18, no. 2 (2007): 217-232.
[6]Violina P. Rindova and Antoaneta P. Petkova, "When Is a New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Chance, Product Form Design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innovations," Organization Science18, no. 2 (2007): 217-232.
[7]Violina P. Rindova and Antoaneta P. Petkova, "When Is a New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Chance, Product Form Design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innovations," Organization Science18, no. 2 (2007): 217-232.
[8]Violina P. Rindova and Antoaneta P. Petkova, "When Is a New Thing a Good Thing? Technological Chance, Product Form Design, and Perceptions of Value for Product Innovations," Organization Science18, no. 2 (2007): 217-232.
[9]Jill Pable, "Design Response to Homelessness," Implications4, no. 7 (2005): 1-6.
[10]Jill Pable, "Design Response to Homelessness," Implications4, no. 7 (2005): 1-6.
[11]Manu Goyal and Serguei Netessine, "Strategic Technology Choice and Capacity Investment under Demand Uncertainty," Management Science53, no. 2 (2007): 192-207.