I think a distinction between method and methodology might be useful here: A method is a set of techniques that are more or less conventionally subscribed to by the UX community. A methodology is a theoretical grounding for that collection of techniques.

It seems pretty reasonable to say that the UX community is quite agnostic when it comes to techniques, but that it also does tend to gravitate toward qualitative rather than quantitative methods. I suppose I’m suggesting that both intuitions can find theoretical support from the phenomenological tradition.

There’s something very appealing about AJ’s description of UX as a craft. UX is probably a craft, but that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no need to clarify or justify the special craftsmanship of the UX practitioner for others. I haven’t read it yet, but I think Richard Sennett’s latest book “The Craftsmen” (there’s a nice review at the Times Online http://is.gd/4t6DR) might help to clarify what UX as a craft means, and more importantly, how to articulate and defend its value within a scientistic society.

Avi’s point about personas is interesting, and may inadvertently reveal an ethical element to UX design. After all, ‘(artificially) congealing and reducing subjectivity of “others/users” into personas and scenarios’ may be an act of empathy, if done well. On the other hand, it could just as easily amount to turning other people into caricatures of themselves, and so threaten to be an abuse of that same empathy. As UX practitioners, our role is ambiguous. We represent the diversity and richness of human experience back to businesses who are often notoriously insensitive to it. But at the same time, we make that same diversity and richness digestible in a commercial context.

I’m curious to know if readers of this magazine feel that there is this ethical – or even democratic – element to their work. Or am I just overdoing it?

Perhaps the success (if mixed) of personas is related? They are, after all, an exercise in empathy. By (artificially) congealing and reducing subjectivity of “others/users” into personas and scenarios, UX practitioners use them to help clients and co-workers “adopt” those “others’/users’” points of view.

@Eric Reiss: I believe that what you propose is a method rather than a methodology – what the author suggests here is that the whole epistemological issue of (interaction) design cannot be solved in, say, a single method or a single approach.

The great thing about interrogating the (non) scientific roots of design is that we find ourselves in a position where we can begin to question the reliance on e.g. stats and maths.

1) UX practitioners want to have more authority, and there’s no higher authority than science in western culture right now.
2) That said, arguing from authority is a logical / rhetorical fault. Is having a “collection of design patterns” better or worse than having a methodology? I’m not sure, but “methodology” sure sounds more authoritative. Patterns sound like something you buy at K-Mart to make your own clothes with, and _anyone_ can do that.

From my own phenomenological analysis: UX design in practice is much less about idealized Platonic rules. You get time and money to do “science” in only very rare cases — it’s important, yes, but worrying about the epistemology of UX methods is a relative luxury for most of us.

Maybe it would be more helpful to think of UX design as a skilled craft rather that trying to pitch it higher as Art or Science. I cannot help but be reminded how starchitects, blinded by the purity of their vision, often forget about the day-to-day human experience of their buildings, and thus we end up with charmless, unusable, alienating spaces. Professional home builders may not garner headlines nor innovate as much, but they get the small details (the points of interaction) right. Their products are familiar, navigable, welcoming. At their best, they also embody some artistic vision, are personalized and adaptable.

But knowing how “professions” work, I doubt we will be satisfied in the role of craftspeople. We want degrees and Authority and the fatter salaries that go along with them….Myself included. In the end, though, does having that kind of authority actually help UX practice, or just accelerates its ossification?