Design research isn’t difficult. We wrote a manifesto anyway.
“But how could we have known?”
In twenty years of working in both fashion retail + creative direction/product development, so many clients would declare their desire for meaningful research, for deeper, genuine origin stories around sourcing, culture, or connection. Under pressure of getting to market, however, these intentions would freqently buckle, defaulting to a ‘safe’ take on a trend, or at worst, a short-sighted cultural appropriation for fleeting pop-culture cachet; thorough ‘research’ scuppered by a panic to maintain the bottom line.
When the product failed to ‘perform’ (read: sell), or when there was a marketing gaffe or cultural insensitivity that led to a PR crises, the response internally was often the same:
“But how could we have known?”
If you’ve ever encountered this sentiment, especially within the worlds of furniture, tech, design, textiles, interiors, footwear, fashion, or film (among others), you’re not alone. However, to find your way out of the woods, sometimes, you need a guide.
In the late 1970’s, Dieter Rams outlined a personal list of tenets to guide more well rounded product design. This became his eponymous’ ‘Ten Principles for Good Design’. For our concerns, we’ve outlined seven principles of our own, to guide more well rounded research practices around product development, and beyond.
These are ‘The Burntsienna Standards for Mindful Research’.
The Standards are :
- Mindful Research Unpacks History.
- Mindful Research Considers Parallels.
- Mindful Research Honours Process.
- Mindful Research Finds Intention.
- Mindful Research Notices Context.
- Mindful Research Questions Standards.
- Mindful Research Allows Interpretation.
Simple enough, right? Yet, let’s take a moment to unpick each one.
Starting with an approach to unpacking history.
Three opening questions to unpack any history : What’s the recorded history vs omitted history? Who/which culture is behind this history? How can this responsibly inform our process?
‘Seeking out materials written by persons from actually within a particular culture is a good start, in learning about the human side of any historical exploration. Or, you know, you can also actually talk to people from within the particular culture that has been revealed. We live in a wide, wonderfully connected world. Just remember : no one owes you an explanation of their culture. But if they are open to sharing, be responsible, + meet them where they are, especially if there is a language differential. Learning their language, be it verbal or design, can be a wonderful show of intention.’
-chapter .1, The Burntsienna Standards
This is how we can begin to unpack the history of history consistently being ‘written by the victors’.
From here, the next step to hack our own unconscious or learned biases is to consider parallels, across time.
Three opening questions to consider parallels : What else exists that is similar to this? Where specifically have we encountered this before? How does this guide or reassure your approach?
‘If ever you have been on an uncertain road while traveling, a landmark or sign of something familiar can be a reassuring solace, a confirmation that you’re on the right path to where you’re aiming to be. The same works with these existential landmarks; the assurance of knowing that you’re onto something (or, at very least, not the only one thinking about this particular matter), can be incredibly uplifting. Not only can it be a guiding light for your path, but may light the way to similarly interested souls that will find great benefit from what your research will lead to creating. It is these end users that we must actively keep in mind. Because there is no they: we are all participants in the systems we have created. That’s the parallel.’
-chapter .2, The Burntsienna Standards
This consideration helps calibrate your navigation, to identify where you fall in the greater strata of creative professionals through the arc of time.
The time taken here makes way for a considered study of the time devoted to the practice of creation : the process.
Three opening questions for honouring process : What are the steps to creating this? How does this process parallel with other processes? How is each step informed by specific history?
‘’The Devil is in The Details’. But the details are a product of the process. The devilish comparisons no doubt come from the tediousness of any given process, be it craft, technological, or just plain technical parts. The amount of depth or dexterity required to execute various processes can, at best, feel overwhelming; at worst, the may feel incomprehensible. The prevailing rule is to mind your perspective: looking at past techniques with present conveniences is an exercise in dissimilar expectations. We have infinitely more distractions these days than in days of yore, and are less concerned with pride in product or craft. So. Go easy on yourself. And those hence. Because the process, can be a process. Learn the steps, then see where you can bring it forward.’
-chapter .3, The Burntsienna Standards
A freind’s grandmother has a beautiful saying : ‘The process is the difference between eating ingredients, and eating apple pie.’ The details of each process may be as explicitly technical as it is uniquely cultural. This is to be honored + revered.
Out of this reverence, a greater respect can grow. From this seed, the next principle will be able form a strong, deeply rooted base : the base of intentionality.
Three opening questions for finding intention : Why is this even being created? What circumstances inspired this, and for what intended use/impact? Is this intention reflected in the development process as well as the end use?
‘... Regardless the initial starting point, it’s important to also balance the intended use or impact with the actual use or impact of the subject of your research. From tools to weapons, art, or even social media, intended use/impact is more often quite different from actual use/impact.
Unpacking further; circumstance + labour have long been inspirations for innovation, as the intention is how to make something more useful or more impactful. ‘Necessity is the mother of invention’ is an oft traded quote that sums this premise up: something was absolutely missing, and direly needed, within a certain time period as a result of a certain circumstance. Be it machine technology for working, or art for reflection or expression against the prevailing times of the day, intention for creation has always been loaded with an almost primal need to make the immediate world better. Which, by virtue can inadvertently change it.’
-chapter .4, The Burntsienna Standards
The voice sample of Goddess Lula Belle on Solange’s ‘Nothing Without Intention (Interlude)’ was a clarion call from time, bringing this into contemporary context: it is as much a reminder as it is a mission statement.
Consider also: the atomic bomb was originally an explorative experiment of nuclear fission for renewable energy.
So. Context. Incredibly important to notice.
Three opening questions towards noticing context : What was going on in the world when the original reference point was created? Who else was creating things in this time (contemporaries)? How does this context help better understand where process + intention intersect?
‘…the circumstances of the world at any given period can place even greater context on creative movements or personal tropes. For example, the Enlightenment wasn’t just happy go lucky philosophers fro no reason; they were coming out of the Dark Ages + needed light. In the same vein, the American ‘Love Movement’ of the late 60’s/early 70’s was borne of all the tension in the country exhausted from inequality + civil rights necessities, compounded by the Vietnam War. This led to many seeking out a different way, a better way of expression + communication. Likewise, the much glorified ‘MAD MEN’ era of advertising occurred whole the Civil Rights marches were occurring on the very streets below their offices; while much of Eastern Zen philosophy came from a time of seeking peace amidst brutal feudal war eras. So. Widen your scope. Pan left, right, zoom out. Always seek the complete picture.’
-chapter.5, The Burntsienna Standards
Austin Kleon’s expansion on what Brian Eno coined as ‘scenius’, or an ‘ecology of talent’ gives much support to debunking the romanticized concept of the lone genius. Whomever is widely credited with creating something, in any sphere, was rarely alone in their thinking or developments. There are always contemporaries that exist.
So why don’t we hear more about these others? Who set the standards that determine who/what is exalted vs what/who is excluded?
Now, you’re asking the right questions.
Three opening questions for questioning standards : What ‘standards’ exist in your industry? Who set these standards, + what do they stand to gain? How can these standards be updated, or even subverted?
‘Ultimately, standards in any discipline are similar to building codes, or operating systems on your devices: as time goes on, some things will need to be updated for the present context, while whole others need to be subverted or completely replaced. And why do we update our operating systems on our devices? So they function more accurately, + are more intuitively helpful or useful. Standards in the aesthetic disciplines are no different: who + what purposes they once served may no longer be relevant. Even Dieter Rams state’s that his standards should be reviewed + updated in time, with each generation. The same goes for textbooks, translations, + practices. Everything is up for review. Especially in such a wonderful, impactful time as now. This is when a deeper research of where we’ve been, or how we got here, is incredibly important. Because for us, this, is the way forward. For we are the architects of what is to come.
-chapter .6, The Burntsienna Standards
The Blue Stocking Society subverted standards for intellectual women in the mid-18th century; under the casual guise of ‘salóns’, they would discuss science + affairs instead of the gossip of the day. Their blue stockings identified their active subversion to each other while out in the world.
The rejection of the status quo has been echoed across cultures, throughout history; the most impactful of which are the interpretations that felt genuinely their unique, in their own time.
Three leading questions on allowing interpretation : Where is there room to interpret/improve upon current standards? What can I add to this from my own perspective? How do I apply this research principles into my own practice?
‘’It’s not that I’m so smart. I just stay with problems longer.’ Einstein’s sentiment is a wonderful guidepost in how to interpret + improve upon things: time. Sitting with this research, proceeding through these steps in your searches, asking yourself + your teams these questions, then… sitting with the questions. Let the answers find you. Remain open to them. Find a reading room or a quiet corner to let your mind wander. The solutions will find you, once you slow down to let them catch up with you. This is how you interpret what you’ve explored: by letting the information settle, like snow in a snow globe. The act of research is upending that globe, but trust that all the concepts for improvement will become abundantly clear. The solution may not come today, or tomorrow, or even within a calendar year, but stay with the problem you are focused on.’
-chapter .7, The Burntsienna Standards
If you remember to note the context of things, remain aware of your intention for what you’re developing, remember that history + process is always tied to people + culture, and keep the parallels from the past in your questioning of your present industry’s standards, you will be in a brilliant space to insert your interpretation into the world.
As is often attributed to Marcel Duchamp, ‘The viewer completes the work.’ Your view will bring this work a new authenticity.
“But how could we have known?”
Anyone on the above list, should you ever again receive this question from them, please share this guide. May it help you, by helping them, find out how they can increase their cultural literacy, through these seven principles.
They may not work for everyone. They may not work for every situation. But try them. Tweak them. Rearrange them. Augment them. Update them. Interpret them as you see fit.
Because if you don’t at least try exploring where these could work,
how could you have known?
Jason E.C. Wright (he/him) is Founder of Burntsienna Research Society, a design research agency based in Los Angeles, originally Tovaangar, the traditional lands of the Tongva people.
An avid walker, active lecturer, + artbook collector, Mr. Wright is author of ‘The Burntsienna Standards for Mindful Research’, from which this essay is derived.
