What Making Things Can Teach Us

Some research is done by making things.

In an approach called research through design, researchers use designing and making to investigate a question. The work is not just a way to demonstrate an answer they already have. It helps them explore what the answer could be.²

In his 2012 paper, William Gaver asks how we should understand the knowledge this work produces. He argues that different designs can make valuable contributions without all pointing toward the same theory or method.¹

Even when we know what needs to be made, we may still have things to work out. Could doing that work in a different order help us make the things that follow?

What Gaver proposes

Gaver suggests presenting a collection of designs alongside explanations of their similarities, differences, and the choices behind them. He calls this an annotated portfolio. The explanation points out what to notice in the designs; the designs show what the explanation means.¹

For an everyday illustration, imagine comparing two instruction sheets. One is a short list of steps. The other has more explanation and includes pictures.

The shorter sheet might be enough for someone who already knows the task. A beginner might need the longer one. Calling either sheet “better” would leave out who needs to use it.

If we reduced the comparison to “keep instructions short,” we would lose something important. Keeping both sheets, with a note about who each was made for, would give us more to work with.

That is how I read Gaver’s proposal. The explanation helps us see the choices. The examples help us see where the explanation stops being useful.

His argument leaves room for designs that answer different needs, rather than treating their differences as a problem that one general rule must solve.¹

The question I would add

In the example above, both instruction sheets are already finished. Now imagine neither has been made yet. Could making one first help us make the other?

That is how I would apply this idea to everyday work. It is a proposal to explore, not a result established by Gaver’s paper.

Imagine a team needs two guides for the same task: a detailed guide for beginners and a short checklist for experienced staff. Both are needed. Which should the team make first?

If it starts with the checklist, it may finish that version quickly. But it still has to do the more demanding work later: explain the task fully, find the confusing steps, and work out what a beginner needs to see.

While making the detailed guide, the team might discover that it left an important step out of the checklist. Now it has to go back and revise something it thought was finished.

Now reverse the order.

The team makes the detailed guide first and tries it with beginners. It works through the unclear steps and missing explanations before making the shorter version.

When it turns to the checklist, it is not starting from scratch. It can use that work to decide which steps must stay and which explanations experienced staff can do without.

The checklist could be easier to make because much of the thinking is already done. It could also be better because the team has a clearer understanding of what it must not leave out.

Both guides were needed either way. Making the detailed one first could let the same effort improve both, rather than reveal problems after the shorter one was already finished.