Theor. Issues in Ergon. Sci.

November–December 2004, vol. 5, no. 6, 507–516

COMMENTARY

The quantitative-qualitative research dichotomy revisited

H. KANIS*

School of Industrial Design Engineering, Department of Applied Ergonomics & Design,

Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, the Netherlands

Keywords: Product design; usage research.

1. Introduction
Hignett and Wilson (2004) present a case study into how qualitative methodology
can be used in ergonomics, as an incentive to explore theoretical issues. This explora-
tion consists of presumptions and views both at the start of the study and evolving
from the study. In addition, the authors set out to demonstrate the application of
a qualitative method, i.e. semi-structured interviewing on the basis of a staged
sampling procedure.
I will discuss some of the theoretical issues raised by the authors, as well as the
empirical study with respect to both the way in which it is carried out and its results.
My commentary is concerned with the extent to which ergonomics as a scientific
endeavour may support usage oriented product design. Here, usage is seen as the
arena for the successful design of products as effective, efficient and satisfactory
means to support, protect, replace and extend human activities.
I depart from the definition of ergonomics adopted by the authors, that is:
ergonomics concerned with ‘. . . the understanding of interactions among humans
and other elements of a system’ and the application of ‘. . . theoretical principles, data
and methods to design in order to optimise human well-being and overall system
performance’ (IEA, 2000). I will narrow down ‘the understanding of interactions’ to
insight into user-product interaction at the so-called ‘micro-level’ (rather than on a
‘meso-’ or ‘macro-level’). The micro-level is referred to by the authors as ‘. . . the
immediate setting in which the person was situated’, and ‘. . . the direct point of
contact to emphasise the individual nature of each interaction.’; interaction in
small groups is seen as the meso-level, while an organisational or population level
is indicated as being macro by the authors.

2. Human interactions model

First, the authors develop a so-called human interactions model (Hignett and Wilson
2004: figure 1). This model is also referred to as an initial conceptual model or
framework, and sometimes features as a reference in the presentation of the findings
of the interview study.

*e-mail: h.kanis@io.tudelft.nl

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science ISSN 1463–922X print/ISSN 1464–536X online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI 10.1080/1463922041233130303418
508 H. Kanis

2.1. Where is the design?

The most prominent term in the model is ‘INTERACTIONS’. However, there is no
trace of the designed artifact (a design model, product(s), system) with which inter-
actions take place. In this respect, the subservient role of ergonomics for design as
intended in the IEA-definition (see above) is not exemplified in the model.

2.2. What about perception?

In the human interactions model, a so-called hexagon underpins the HUMAN as
‘anatomical & anthropometrical’, ‘physiological & biomechanical’, ‘cognitive’, ‘emo-
tional’, ‘philosophical’ and ‘social’. Perception is notable by its absence here. It may
be argued that perceptive and cognitive activities of human beings are difficult to
disentangle (Neisser 1976). They are, however, not at all mutually convertible.
Think, for example, of the difference between not noticing and not understanding: in
design this distinction may make all the difference. In the text of the paper, the
concept of perception is addressed in diverging contexts, including the observation,
on the basis of references from the literature, that ‘two people may interact with the
same . . . product and have very different perceptions of it . . .’ Surely this conclusion
requires explicit attention to perception in studying human-product interaction.

2.3. Making up the human

In the human interactions model, which is said to derive from the literature, the
corners of the hexagon (see above) are presented as parallel impacts making up the
human. Visually, these impacts are not specified as to their (relative) contribution to
the human as the interacting organism.
In our empirical research we have found that the unfolding of user-product
interaction is primarily a matter of user activities consisting of perception, cognition
and action (including any effort involved). See figure 1 in the present paper.
Time and again research has shown that the role of human characteristics, as
limitations and capacities in terms of sensory, mental and physical properties is
largely constrained to setting boundary conditions, mainly indicating what users
will not do since they are unable to. How users perform activities within these
boundaries usually has little to do with their capacities and limitations (Kanis 1998).
The evidence from our studies of the relevance of emotional conditions in user--
product interacton is limited. In research into accidents involving consumer prod-
ucts, Weegels found that moods such as being distracted, drowsy, in a hurry or
irritated, although common in everyday life, cannot be seen as a regular ‘cause’ in
the occurrence of accidents (Weegels and Kanis 1998).
The social dimension is discussed by the authors in terms of ‘social and cultural
values’, ‘social factors’ and ‘social attitudes’, derived from the literature. Narrowed
down to the presence of other people, this social dimension turned out to be con-
tributory to the occurrence of only a few accidents in the study referred to above
(Weegels 1996: 88). Weegels observes that the role of bystanders cannot be designed
out (1996: 36).
Finally, the philosophical dimension in the hexagon appears to differ from the
rest in being twofold: it regards how human perceptions and views (in general) may
be understood, as well as the practitioners’ choice of methods to study human
understanding and performance as being never value-free. What seems confusing
is that, apparently, the HUMAN in figure 1 is not only a user whose operation of
a product is studied but also a practitioner who studies this interaction.
 Quantitative-qualitative research dichotomy 509

Figure 1. Usage as an ongoing concatenation in context of user activities, i.e., perception,

cognition (including experience as situated knowledge), and action, with any effort
involved, and a functioning product, constrained by human properties, capacities and
limitations as well as by featural (form) characteristics of the product.

2.4. Going general versus digging on the spot

In view of the inclusion of a social and a philosophical dimension which may
somehow be linked with manifestations on micro-, meso- and macro-levels (see
above), the human interactions model is meant to be wide-ranging. The authors
adopt an inclusive view of the role of scientific knowledge in ergonomics. In referring
to the literature they point out that this role increasingly consists of (see table 2) ‘the
study of humans in teams, organisations rather than individuals’, and needing ‘even
more holistic concepts such as universal purpose . . .’. However, in discussing the
hexagon (see above), it is stated that a person-centred view is used: ‘to identify the
attributes that the person brings to the system as a separate entity rather than a
system or task-centred approach.’

2.4.1 Specifics not predictable from a generality: It may be argued that these quotes
from the Hignett-Wilson paper (see above) appear to be at odds with each other.
What matters here is how research can support usage oriented design. Our empirical
studies show that user activities i.e., perception, cognition, action including experi-
enced effort (see figure 1 in the present paper) tend to be largely unpredictable on the
basis of theoretical considerations (Kanis 1998). As it happens, actual usage of newly
designed products often comes as a surprise to designers. In many cases this surprise
is an unwelcome one, as unanticipated users’ operations deteriorate designed func-
tionalities or may lead to accidents.
510 H. Kanis

The unpredictability of user activities, however, does not mean that there are no
general mechanisms in the emerging of these activities. For example, the tendency to
adopt a low level of cognitive involvement as the default (i.e. automatic actions, or
skill-based in terms of Rasmussen’s model (1986)), the occurrence of habituation
(Lambert 2002), and the fixation of users trapped by their experience in terms of
situated knowledge (Standaert and Christiaans 2000). Nonetheless, to paraphrase
Garfinkel (1991), actual user activities ‘cannot be recovered by attempts, no matter
how thoughtful, to specify an examinable practice by detailing a generality.’ In other
words: on the basis of generic insights such as indicated above (i.e. low cognitive
involvement, habituation, fixation) one will never be able to specify the situatedness
of actual usage in context. Here, the term ‘situatedness’ is adopted from Suchman
(1987), indicating that user activities are prompted by what people encounter from
moment to moment in a partly self-made situation, rather than user activities emer-
ging as invariant structures applying across situations (see Suchman 1987: 67).
Similar to theoretical preconceptions, notions like ‘plan’ or ‘task’ can possibly pre-
dict tendencies in human behaviour (cf. Activity Theory in Nardi 1996). However,
such notions (let alone a ‘universal purpose’) appear to be largely non-effective for
anticipating actual user activities. Here, another observation of Garfinkel seems to
apply, i.e., his description of people as rule users, constantly trying to work out how
to match the specificities of particular situations to whatever general orientation
(quoted in Murphy et al. 1998: 53).

2.4.2 Usage oriented design in need of anticipatory research methods: What do the
observations in the previous paragraph mean in terms of ‘going general versus dig-
ging on the spot’?
First of all they mean that designers are in need of anticipatory methods which
can be readily applied during a design process, think of the use of early models or
prototypes in exploring future usage (Rooden 2001). The application of such antici-
patory methods should result in measurements and observations consisting of user’s
activities linked to featural (form) and functional characteristics of the particular
product to be (re)designed, since these characteristics are, ultimately, what product
design is about. Questions about future usage which a designer faces, in the end
always tend to be specific regarding the product and contextual regarding possible
environments, with an eye for the diverse individual activities of future users. There
is no such thing as the design of a ‘general product’, the functioning of which would
be invariant for diverging user operations under various circumstances. People do
not end up in hospital due to normal’ or ‘average’ accidents.
Ergonomics involving the optimisation ‘of human well-being and overall system
performance’ (see IEA-definition above) has never been keen on providing designers
with the insights or tools to cope with the situatedness of product usage (Green 2002).
The intended subservience of ergonomics to design seems to have largely been
restricted to the production of summative measures such as means and standard
deviations for properties, capacities and limitations of human beings, the number of
usability problems (or ‘errors’) and performance times. Such summative measures do
not concern actual usage, or only indirectly. In addition, cases ‘ironed out to blurred
averages’, as Murphy et al. (1998: 104) put it, will hardly be of help for designers
facing future usage as the ultimate arena, see Kanis et al. (1999) for examples of
empirical studies (one of these examples is summarised below, see 4.3.1). This arena
of future usage will inevitably be situated, and conditioned by the individual predis-
 Quantitative-qualitative research dichotomy 511

positions of users. Such considerations make a strong case for doing qualitative
research.

3. Doing qualitative research

Hignett and Wilson (2004) list five key points to differentiate qualitative from quan-
titative methods: words and pictures, rather than numbers; few cases, many ‘vari-
ables’ instead of the reverse; sampling developed during study rather than pre-
assigned; iterative analysis; reflexivity as to the role of the researcher.
In addition to practical considerations, the authors raise two theoretical issues in
support of their choice to explore the role of qualitative methods in ergonomics by
qualitative study: (i) ergonomics being seen as a socially situated area (cf. Hignett
2001), and (ii) the adoption of a so-called middle ground philosophy, involving ‘an
ontological position of subtle or transcendental realism’. This position is briefly
explained and might be seen as an amalgamation of realism and constructionism
(cf. Crotty 1998).
The authors raise a third theoretical point in their choice of interviewing as the
type of qualitative research. ‘Epistemologically,’ the authors argue, ‘this means that
a legitimate way to generate data . . . was to talk with people to find out their views
and accounts.’ (iii).

3.1. Socially situated ergonomics (i)

In the paper ‘Embedding ergonomics in hospital culture: top-down and bottom-up
strategies’, Hignett (2001) suggests that this title takes the position that ergonomics
has a socially situated practice. This practice involves an ergonomic strategy being
part of the organisational and safety policy for the implementation of ergonomic
input. But why should this ‘social situatedness’ favour the study of e.g. a limited
number of cases represented in words (see the first two key points above, in differ-
entiating qualitative from quantitative research)? Perhaps this topic could have been
more clearly addressed, had the authors referred to qualitative research as the study
of local production of meaning in specific contexts (Seale 1999: 120), or to qualitative
data as always having to be understood in relation to the context of their production
(Murphy et al. 1998: 185), and to see this understanding as produced in dialogue, not
reproduced (Schwandt 2000: 195). They might then have clarified the reasons why,
and which, alternative research approaches have been rejected as less appropriate for
answering the research questions, and why ergonomics, as the authors put it, is being
taken up to the scientific level of ‘more holistic concepts’ (see table 1) by the present
exploration of qualitative methodology.
For that matter, qualitative studies in social research certainly may rely on
counting and comparing numbers, see for example Seale (2000: 121). Schwandt
(2000: 206, 210) also argues in favour of getting rid of the distinction between
qualitative and quantitative research in stating that there is nothing inherent in
epistomologies of qualitative inquiries that prohibits the use of numbers as data.
What seems an omission in the Hignett-Wilson paper is scaling as another dis-
tinctive key point between qualitative and quantitative research. Think of interval-
or ratio-scales for physical ‘variables’, those used in anthropometrics, or Likert and
Osgood scales for self-reports in terms of ratings on the basis of internal references of
persons.
512 H. Kanis

3.2. Why subtle or transcendental realism as an ontological position? (ii)

Is there any compelling argument why ‘a middle ground philosophical position’
would support the choice of qualitative research? Had such a reference not been
made, would that have been an omission? Now the issue is raised, the question
emerges whether there should indeed be only one ontology. Take as an example
the presentation of user-product interaction in figure 1. Studying this interaction
for usage oriented design purposes might involve topics ranging from human char-
acteristics (sensory thresholds, memory capacity and anthropometrics as boundary
conditions for the actual usage) to self-reports on internal states and processes
(perception/cognition, experienced effort etc.).
What is the problem with a positivist approach to the measurement of, say, the
head circumference or the elbow-wrist length? Without any problem, it seems, such
entities can be posed as existing ‘out there’ and may satisfactorily be described in
a method meant to measure these characteristics, that is to say: posited as existing
‘out there’ independent from the application of this method. On the other hand,
what sense would it make to stick to ontological realism when empirical observations
consist only of interactions, that is: users operating products as they apparently do,
giving the self-reports they utter. Why should there be an ‘underlying reality’ con-
stituting (e.g.) the ‘true’ occurrence of an accident, rather than various observables,
accountably making up a situated practice? Here, constructionism seems to be
a viable ontological position (cf. Crotty 1998).
Obviously, positivists, relativists (and other ‘. . .ists’) will always come up with
suitable examples supporting their cause — opposing examples of course, the one
‘talking things’ such as products, the other observing interaction as producing. Why
not allow these ontologies to co-exist, without a particular type of realism as an
overarching label?

3.3. Epistemological legitimation for talking to people? (iii)

As in the case of any ontological position, I wonder why talking to people in order to
interview them should be in need of an epistemological legitimation. As mentioned
above, what would have been welcome is a discussion of the appropriateness
of interviews in addressing the question of how qualitative research can be used in
ergonomics.
To some extent, the present approach may not have yielded first hand knowledge
since a number of interviewees turned out to have limited knowledge of the theory or
practice of qualitative research. Another concern involves the question of how inter-
viewees have interpreted the terms ‘qualitative’ and ‘quantitative’. As indicated
above, various interpretations seem possible. This may also be the case for a for-
mulation like ‘the impact of social factors on ergonomics’, a topic presented to the
interviewees in another question. Probing interpretative diversity is one of the
strengths of discussing matters with interviewees, i.e. trying to sort out what state-
ments are about. In the paper, reflexivity, as the questioning of the influence on the
results of the applied method (including the role of the researcher) in order to
promulgate the transparancy and tractability of the analysis, is addressed in general
terms but is not dealt with on the basis of examples from the data. Similarly, there
are no examples of the consequences of including in the analysis extreme or deviant
cases which have been sought in the last (fourth) stage of the sampling procedure.
Accounting for negative instances encapsulates the fallibilistic research strategy as
 Quantitative-qualitative research dichotomy 513

seen by Seale (1999: 86). Were there any results of maximising the possibility of
finding disconfirming evidence, as Murphy et al. put it (1998: 97)?

4. Results
4.1. A representational model
The interpretation of the hierarchically coded data results in a so-called representa-
tional model of the role of qualitative methodology in ergonomics. This model seems
rather general (Hignett and Wilson 2004: figure 6). Does it exclude anything? Nega-
tive cases have been included it seems, so some falsification of previous versions
might have occurred. It may be wondered whether the conclusion that a ‘middle
ground position seems to be appropriate for ergonomics’ can be linked to the model,
on the basis of evidence from the interview data.

4.2. Social factors

The authors observe ‘an overwhelming view that ergonomics must expand to include
social factors in order to address ‘why’ people do things.’ This finding can mean
different things. Perhaps interviewees had ‘factors’ in mind of a general kind such as
social and cultural values. Such broad factors might delineate boundary conditions
for human-product interaction. In as far as the insignificance of human character-
istics for the unfolding of user-product interaction in practice can be seen as indi-
cative (see above), this example yields no promising perspective for the extent to
which social factors can help to explain (or even predict) the interaction of users with
products, especially if such social factors would consist of cases ‘ironed out to
blurred averages’ (see above). However, the call to include social factors in ergo-
nomics may also reflect the recognition of the relevance of a social context for locally
emerging interactions. Take, for example, reasons being given not to comply with an
ergonomic programme that has been implemented (e.g. organisational shortcom-
ings) or reasons not to use a particular product (e.g. expected stigmatisation).
Such reasons can only be researched through what people do and say, rather than
by experimentation which is the classic way of deciding on causalities.

4.3. Situated individuality versus summative analyses

As indicated above, reflexivity may involve not only the role of the researcher but
also possible consequences of the applied method. For instance, addressing the
impact of social factors on ergonomics research and practice (see table 2) will gen-
erate (extra) reactions in interviews. The same holds for the interview questions
regarding the quantitative-qualitative issue. To some extent, all interviewees seemed
to agree with the view that ‘the discipline and practice of ergonomics is engaged in
the qualitative-quantitative debate, . . .’. Apparently, none of the interviewees indi-
cated that there is another distinction bearing on the significance of ergonomic
research in supporting usage oriented design. This distinction involves the contrast
between situated individuality and summative analyses.
To conclude this commentary, I will give two empirical examples in order to
substantiate this, in retrospect, ‘deviant case’.
514 H. Kanis

4.3.1 Summative measures of little significance in design (an example): In Kanis

et al. (1999), a comparison is made between the observed use of two voice-operated
information services on train journeys within the Netherlands. It is shown that in this
case summative measures such as overall transaction success, mean dialogue dura-
tion, median number of turns and recognition errors were insignificant for the
designers involved. They used the dialogue transcriptions together with the in-
depth interviews to redesign both interfaces. In particular the variation in
users’ actions, reactions and expectations, as well as the consequences of these for
the ensuing dialogue, gave the designers focal points for system properties
that should be avoided or changed. In this approach, the analysis was essentially
reliant on the exploitation of ‘subjectivity’ in terms of individual accounts and
observations.
Design relevant observations may very well be quantitative as is shown in the
next example.

4.3.2 The design relevance of quantitative data (an example): At the request of a
car company, we studied feet movements in the footwell space of a car in order to
establish whether these movements would be constrained by the interior space and
lay-out (Peijs et al. 1999). The available footwell space in cars tends to become more
and more constricted due to safety considerations, costs, design trends etc.
Feet movements of participants (n ¼ 9) were video-recorded by their projection
on a field of checkered gridlines placed on the bottom of the footwell space. For each
participant the positions of the feet in a 55 minutes drive (about 40 minutes in the
city, the rest on the highway) were traced in order to make up the total area occupied
by the shoe sole per individual. In addition to these registrations, participants were
interviewed, during the drive and in a retrospective interview, about their experiences
regarding the footwell space.
On the basis of regression analyses, it is shown that drivers use more space the
larger their feet (see figure 2), but proportionally less space (see figure 3).
It may be argued that the pattern in figure 3 for the brake pedal simply represents
natural behaviour, rather than operations being constrained in space by the presence
of adjacent pedals. This explanation is not confirmed by the way the foot support is
used (at the left side of the car, freely accessible). For this support, the regression
coefficient resulting from the same analysis as presented in figure 2 for the break

Figure 2. Right foot operating the brake pedal: relationship shoe sole area and area used.
 Quantitative-qualitative research dichotomy 515

Figure 3. Right foot operating the brake pedal: relationship shoe sole area and the ratio
area used/shoe sole area.

pedal amounts to 1.98 ( p ¼ 0.0002) with R2 ¼ 0.90, while the same regression as
presented in figure 3 for the break pedal results for the foor support in a statistically
non-significant coefficient of 0.11 ( p ¼ 0.5, with R2 ¼ 0.07), which means that the line
of regression for the foot support can be seen as running horizontally (‘in terms of’
figure 3).
For the car company these outcomes signified that, in the design of the footwell
space of cars, limits were being approached or even overstepped. There would have
been no reason for this conclusion if the only data available had been the reactions of
the participants in the interviews: none indicated any problems such as discomfort,
or could recall mistakes, i.e., operating the wrong pedal.
The lack of concordance between the qualitative data and the results of the
quantitative analysis may have an obvious reason: the fact that, the bigger people
are, the more they are used to having proportionally less room available. This
experience will have set reference points. Seen in this way, interviewing participants
has not produced wrong or biased answers. It is the quantitative analysis which in
this case yields a deeper insight.
Note that the quantitative analysis is based on the individuality of participants,
captured in shoe sole area and used area, in situ. This example shows that there is
nothing in the quantitativeness (of the data, of the analysis) detracting from the
design-relevance of the study. On the contrary! It would have been detrimental to
sacrifice the ‘richness’ of cases in terms of situated individuality to summative
descriptions such as averages and standard deviations, blurring interindividual
differences and being contextually stripped.
From a usage oriented design perspective it is not only the type of data which
determines their significance, but also the way in which the data are treated. The
readiness of quantitative data to being processed summatively may satisfy require-
ments for publication which are still dominant in the literature (cf. Green 2002).
However, the quantitative character of data per se, i.e., as countings of measurement
units constituting unambiguous and meaningful scales, cannot be blamed for this.
Qualitative data has no inherent claim to superiority.
516 H. Kanis

References
CROTTY, M. 1998, The Foundations of Social Research (London: Sage).
GARFINKEL, H. 1991, Respecification [. . .], in G. Button (ed), Ethnomethodology and the
Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 10–19.
GREEN, W. S. 2002, Ergonomics and the design of consumer products: moving beyond retro-
active fixes, Proceedings of the Australian Ergonomics Society, Melbourne (in press).
HIGNETT, S. and WILSON, J. R. 2004, The role for qualitative methodology in ergonomics: a
case study to explore theoretical issues, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5, 473–
493.
HIGNETT, S. 2001, Embedding ergonomics in hospital culture: top-down and bottom-up stra-
tegies, Applied Ergonomics, 32, 61–69.
IEA 2000, International Ergonomics Association, Triennial Report (Santa Monica, CA: IEA
Press).
KANIS, H. 1998, Usage centred research for everyday product design, Applied Ergonomics, 29,
75–82.
KANIS, H., WEEGELS, M. F. and STEENBEKKERS, L. P. A. 1999, The uninformativeness of
quantitative research for usability focused design of consumer products, Proceedings
of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Annual Meeting (Santa Monica, CA), 401–405.
LAMBERT, J. V. 2002, Designing more habituation-resistent warning systems: Sokolov’s cor-
tical model, Contemporary Ergonomics, Proceedings of the Ergonomics Society (London:
Taylor & Francis), 437–441.
MURPHY, E., DINGWALL, R., GREATBACH, D., PARKER, S. and WATSON, 1998, Qualitative
research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature (Health
Technology Assessment, http://www.soton.ac.uk/
hts).
NARDI, B. A. 1996, Context and Consciousness (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
NEISSER, U. 1976, Cognition and reality (W.H. Freeman).
PEIJS, S., GREEN, W. S., KANIS, H. and MAARTENSE, J. 1999, Footwell Space, Automotive
Ergonomics and Safety, Proceedings of 32nd ISATA Conference (Oxford, UK), 171–
178.
RASMUSSEN, J. 1986, Information processing and Human-Machine Interaction: An Approach to
Cognitive Engineering (Amsterdam: North Holland).
ROODEN, M. J. 2001, Design models for anticipating future usage, Thesis (Delft University of
Technology).
SCHWANDT, T. A. 2000, Three Epistimological Stances for Qualitative Inquiry, in N. Denzin
and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage).
SEALE, C. F. 1999, The Quality of Qualitative Research (London: Sage).
STANDAERT, A. and CHRISTIAANS, H. 2000, Does fixation interfere with product usability?
Proceedings of the IEA/HFES Congress (Santa Monica, CA), 6-81–6-84.
SUCHMAN, L. 1987, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine
Communication (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
WEEGELS, M. F. 1996, Accidents involving consummer products, Thesis (Delft University of
Technology).
WEEGELS, M. F. and KANIS, H. 1998, Misconceptions of everyday accidents, Ergonomics in
Design, 6, 11–17.

About the author

Heimrich Kanis is currently associate professor in the Department of Applied Ergonomics and
Design of the School of Industrial Design Engineering at the Delft University of Technology.
His research interests include usage observation in support of design. Previously, he has done
product testing for consumer organizations, carried out research into the development of test
methods and into the energy consumption of household appliances, and investigated the
influence of consumer organizations on product innovation.