I have a weakness for science methods... I’ve mentioned it before. Dan Saffer just wrote about the design process and the scientific method. In short Saffer gives a good explanation why the design process is not a scientific method: a scientific process should lead to repeatable outcomes, while a design will (and should!) not. I agree.

UX professionals, as in other social / humanity professions, usually choose between a scientific view of their profession and a more humanity / quality / creative view. Social sciences are relatively new fields of science and for many years striving to prove that they deserve the “science” title. Postmodernism winds have changed it a little but still for the wide public the scientific title gives an integrity certificate to whatever people do. I know math & physics seems complicated to most people (and both are in many ways) but dealing with people is always more complicated and a bigger challenge in my view.  With no definite rules, no one paradigm, no outcome twice (even when you pursue the same process, as Saffer pointed out) you need more than “just” a scientific method to achieve a solution. Yes, I agree research will help, problem solving methods help too but none of these tells the full story of a design process, there is more into it.

So while some UX’ers invest in research, processes and methods other claim it is all about creativity, sketching and doing good. Is there a road in between? I hope so cause that is where I’m heading. Which way are you?