This answer may not be so obvious, at least when it comes to design research. In 2009, a text generated a great commotion among designers by stating that design research is interesting and important, but only for developing and improving existing products. The true drivers of revolutionary inventions in society would be science and technology.
The method of innovation in design has always been taught by the paradigm that necessity is the mother of invention: innovation would first stem from ethnographic field research to discover, with the people in their communities, malls, or supermarkets, their still hidden and unconscious needs. From these needs, the designer would develop their ideas to meet this desire. This would be innovation in design.
However, for some people, things are not quite so straightforward. And this disagreement would not matter much if the critic were not the pope of emotional design. Don Norman, author of books such as "The Design of Everyday Things" and "Emotional Design," in an article titled "Technology first, needs last," completely reverses the motherhood of invention, showing that first, technological innovation arises, which after some time will be applied and made available. Design research would only come into play to develop these ideas, but the real innovation would originate in laboratories (technology), not in ethnographic research (needs).
He argues that all major revolutions stemmed from innovations that had no influence from design research, such as the airplane, the computer, the automobile, etc.
Of course, those who conduct design research were quite shaken by Don Norman's opinion and joined the conversation. One of them, Bruce Nussbaum, criticizes this "top-down" view, saying it is an old method of innovation and argues that real innovation is not in the invention (tool, product, or experience in question), but rather in its presentation and application in society; otherwise, the invention would remain forever on the laboratory shelf. And it is the designers who are the intermediaries between the laboratory and society.
He also states that today there are new ways to innovate thanks to new tools and methods in ethnographic research, which are more horizontal, dynamic, and open source, allowing greater communication between people and technologists, and even the participation of these people in the development of an invention they may come to use.
This controversy will not be resolved anytime soon, as some arguments from both sides seem to lack a strong thesis. For Don Norman, the airplane did not require ethnographic research to be invented, but does anyone doubt that the whole world needed and was already yearning for this invention? In fact, what happened was a race to invent the airplane. So much so that the authorship of the feat remains a historical controversy to this day (Santos Dumont or the Wright brothers).
On the other hand, these new tools that allow greater participation from people in the creative process, such as in the creation of mobile apps, for example, originated from the technology of mobile phones, wireless networks, the internet, touch screens, and so on.
A possible middle ground would depend on acknowledging that the process of innovation in design was indeed as Don Norman describes, but that it is now rapidly changing to what Nussbaum shows, and perhaps the path lies in the complementarity and interdependence between the laboratory and field research.
In fact, what this controversy highlights is that more research is needed, not only focused on product development but also on how design research itself is developed behind the scenes.
References and suggested readings:
http://jnd.org/dn.mss/technology_first_needs_last.html
http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/NussbaumOnDesign/archives/2009/12/technology_vs_c.html
