In his article, “The Value of Synthesis in Driving Innovation,” Jon Kolko makes an interesting distinction between market research and design research [1]. Whereas market research is equipped to simply predict future behavior, according to Kolko, design research goes further by helping individuals find inspiration for design.

My rationale for why this happens actually stems from another article written by him, “Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design Synthesis,” in which he juxtaposes various forms of reasoning (e.g., deductive v. inductive reasoning — i.e., reasoning from the general to the specific v. reasoning from the specific to the general). In that article, he posits that design synthesis — the process that bridges the gap between design research (problem understanding) and design (problem solving) — is underpinned by a form of reasoning called “abductive reasoning,” which is when a designer makes a “best guess” or inference/leap from what is to what might be.

As far as I can tell, both market and design research methods employ various means of sensemaking. But, the underlying reason why design research is able to inspire while market research can only predict, I believe, has to do with the form of logic that underpins each research method. Market research employs inductive reasoning: it begins with a hypothesis, then tries to make a broader claim (or theory); but it stops there, which is why it can only predict behavior. Design research, on the other hand, is underpinned by abductive reasoning: it allows the researcher to draw inferences and make “best guess” leaps; unlike inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning allows for the creation of new knowledge. And it is this new knowledge — these new insights that are created — that provide the inspiration for design (problem solutions).

References

[1] Jon Kolko, "The Value of Synthesis in Driving Innovation" (pp. 38-40)

[2] Jon Kolko, "Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design Synthesis" (pp. 19-21)