On September 16, David Hambrick and Alexander Burgoyne wrote about rationality and intelligence in The New York Times (“The Difference Between Rationality and Intelligence”). Their article makes it clear why it can be so challenging to be a designer – developing the best options for new spaces and objects requires that someone be both intelligent and rational.
Messrs. Hambrick and Burgoyne distinguish between rationality and intelligence like this: “If an I.Q. test measures something like raw intellectual horsepower (abstract reasoning and verbal ability), a test of R.Q. [rationality quotient] would measure the propensity for reflective thought – stepping back from your own thinking and correcting its faulty tendencies. There is also now evidence that rationality, unlike intelligence, can be improved through training.” The training helps people overcome their decision-making biases.
As professionals working to understand the needs and aspirations of others, designers need the intelligence to collect needed information, what people expect to accomplish in a space, the purposes of meetings to be held, etc.
But designers need to move beyond these more straightforward assessments and consider additional factors, such as culture, expectations based on previous personal and professional experiences, etc., if they’re going to ultimately create an experience that fully meets user needs and supports them as they work to achieve their full potential. As soon as designers enter this complex problem space, they need to confront their decision-making biases to develop effective solutions.
Designers need to consciously or unconsciously recognize that their work lives, or whatever life facet their design is being asked to support, are likely quite different from those of the people who will use whatever is under development. They need to step outside their own preconceived notions and often their safety zones to understand the emotional and cognitive contexts of the individuals who will ultimately use what is being developed. This is difficult, very difficult – but very important. Through their education, but mainly through their professional experiences, successful designers learn to really empathize with the people who will use whatever they’re developing.
Empathy is not sympathy. It is project-specific wisdom. Recognizing and applying that wisdom often requires making hard choices and working within tight constraints – financial, time, and otherwise. Coming to the alternatives proposed requires solving a tough puzzle, again and again, for each new project. The best options, considering all of the objectives to be achieved, may not be the most popular with users or anyone else. Moving forward with them often requires courage grounded in the rationality required to find that right path.
True reflection, and rationality, are difficult, particularly when workplaces are being designed. The rewards for responding to the challenges they pose are in the experiential outcomes achieved. People with high levels of wellbeing at work. People who are truly happy at work.
Sally Augustin, PhD, a cognitive scientist, is the editor of Research Design Connections (www.researchdesignconnections.com), a monthly subscription newsletter and free daily blog, where recent and classic research in the social, design, and physical sciences that can inform designers’ work are presented in straightforward language. Readers learn about the latest research findings immediately, before they’re available elsewhere. Sally, who is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, is also the author of Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture (Wiley, 2009) and, with Cindy Coleman, The Designer’s Guide to Doing Research: Applying Knowledge to Inform Design (Wiley, 2012). She is a principal at Design With Science (www.designwithscience.com) and can be reached at sallyaugustin@designwithscience.com.