Are Usability Specialists better than Generalists?
For the past couple of weeks, I've been stewing a bit over a piece in Jakob Nielsen's newsletter, in particular a short bit suggesting that, when it comes to usability, specialists are better than generalists. Now, I understand what his point was, and I'm probably being a bit hypersensitive, but as someone who considers myself a generalist, this particular bit of elitism always rubs me the wrong way.On the theoretical level, one fact that I became firmly convinced of while pursuing my Ph.D. in cognitive psychology is that we humans are capable of learning much more (and much more broadly) than conventional wisdom suggests. Unfortunately, our misconceptions about the nature of our own capacity limits is partly the fault of psychologists. We have had a tendency in the modern era to model our understanding of the brain after systems or machines created by humans. Not surprisingly, much of the modern cognitive model of the brain is based in part on computer hardware. While these analogies are often useful, they also tend to introduce unfounded assumptions. For instance, most people tend to think of the storage capacity of the brain like a hard drive: fill it up with stuff of Type X and you won't have any room left for stuff of Type Y.
Unfortunately, this analogy is so easy to grasp (memory = hard drive) that it's taken us decades to realize that it's almost completely false. The storage mechanisms of the brain are complex and "holographic" in nature, and one consistent finding of learning research is that new knowledge is easier to build on old knowledge. Of course, this means, in part, that specialists tend to become efficient learners in their areas of study. It also means, though, that we have the capacity for broader learning, across multiple areas, without reducing our capacity for depth in any one area. In addition, cross-disciplinary learning allows us to draw novel connections that might not be available to someone who focuses on a single skill.
On the practical side, while I certainly think there are highly capable and intelligent specialists in many fields (including usability), I also think we're seeing more and more examples of the value of cross-disciplinary knowledge. I've known many specialists who have difficulty seeing the forest for the trees, not always an issue in academia, but often a problem when dealing with clients and commercial applications. Someone with an incredible depth of usability knowledge but very little cognizance of design, branding, or search engine optimization might suggest changes that, while incrementally good for usability, have a negative or even disastrous effect on the client's goals. Propping up a conversion rate by 0.001% while making it impossible for Google to spider a site, for example, is a mistake much more likely to be made by someone with a narrow view of their field.
Of course, Jakob's initial piece was based on the question of whether or not designers should practice usability. I say, wholeheartedly, "yes!". Does that mean that a designer who knows a bit about usability is better than a usability specialist on a question of "pure" usability. No, of course not. If you need highly specialized knowledge, by all means ask a qualified specialist. On the other hand, a designer equipped with a basic knowledge of usability will not only contribute more to the broad goals of a website, but will actually be able to work better with and enable the activities of usability specialists. Closing off our knowledge to other disciplines, from that standpoint, is cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
Dr. Pete
· Thursday, July 12I see a trend towards specialization in many fields, and I think part of the reason is too much of a focus on efficiency. Yes, a specialist can do very specific tasks very efficiently. Unfortunately, this trend tends to create tunnel vision, where we're unaware of potentially relevant information outside of our own field of study.
It reminds me of a definition I once heard of management vs. leadership. Management is figuring out how to climb a ladder as effectively as possible. Leadership is making sure the ladder is leaning against the right wall. Specialists are very good at getting up the ladder, but that's of no value if someone put the ladder in the wrong place.
Kevin
· Thursday, July 12I sure hope generalists are not fated to be considered inferior to "specialists," because I know many generalists who perform as well as specialists in many areas. Indeed, why isn't a generalist considered someone who might have multiple specialties? I feel this is especially applicable in the art world, where a professional 3D graphics artist is often expected to be an incredible painter, clay modeler/potter, and sketcher, all of which are intimidating fields of their own.
As someone who's wandered all over the place choosing my major (Humanities -> Computer Science -> Biology -> Biomedical Computation -> Economics -> ?), and having not taken any upper-division classes yet in any of the fields I had considered majoring in, I'm supposedly at a severe disadvantage to specialists (also known as, people who can decide on a major).
Funny thing is, I thought I was a terrible coder - projects took me forever, and the computer science population worked with such skill and alacrity that I realized the major was not for me. Now I'm an intern at IBM after letting them know that I was an extreme generalist and "alright" at coding in Java, and guess what? Every other intern in my department (who are, by the way, mostly engineering majors), are working with powerpoint and whatnot, and I, the economics major, am doing serious coding, as a "Software Engineer." Without taking any upper division computer science courses. I didn't get assigned to marketing or analysis, but to development.
So I'd say it depends on the organization and department - specialist and generalist status is entirely relative. I scoff when someone claims to be a "specialist" in a certain area. Show me what you can do, and then we'll talk. Then again, maybe IBM thought coding was my "specialty." Which would mean that I'm a sad, pathetic, stupid little thing...
Dr. Pete
· Friday, July 13Coding is a great example. I think a lot of younger programmers have been hurt by a market that values whatever specialty is hot at the time. So, they dive in to learn PHP or become an AJAX specialist, and when it's no longer the hot skill, they've got nowhere to turn. Like anyone who's written code for more than a decade or two, I'd much rather have a programmer who understands core logic, programming principles, etc. over one who is a guru in one language but has weak logic skills.
Terry Bleizeffer
· Thursday, July 19I think it's important to distinguish between "generalist" and, for lack of a better word, "leader". There are generally two ways to advance as a practitioner in whatever field - to become a specialist in a particular area or to become a leader who often provides direction to the specialists. I think there's clear value in either. Staying as a "generalist" without ever moving into the "leader" space doesn't seem to be a laudable goal to me.
Regarding whether being a specialist is a good thing, I think question is whether it is possible for a generalist to be as good at something as a specialist, loosely speaking. In the medical profession, for example, the answer is obviously no. Being really good at one thing in medicine is so hard that specialties are required. But even then you have general practitioners who serve as leaders - they direct patients to the right specialists.
What about UX? Is it sufficiently complex that specialties are needed? I think the answer is an emerging "yes". Being a great user researcher is tough, for example, and it's not something that any UXer off the street can do well. Generalists are still needed, but mostly in two cases - as leaders and when they are the only UXer on a project.
Dr. Pete
· Thursday, July 19You make some good points, Terry. I do think, though, that both in academia and medicine, we have people who develop a specialty to the point where they lose track of everything else. I'd rather have the 7th best heart surgeon in the world who also has a good grasp of general medicine than the #1 heart surgeon, for instance. Specialism is a natural progression in any skill, and it's an absolutely logical thing to pursue, but I worry that we overvalue it to our detriment as broader thinkers.
Mike Maddaloni
· Thursday, July 12Hi Dr. Pete!
Years ago at a small consulting firm I worked for, the justification for not giving me a raise or bonus was that I was a generalist and I could not be billed at a higher rate as a specialist. The first words out of my mouth were, "thank you" and I proceeded to tell the president of the firm that the project that I was on for the last 1.5 years needed a generalist, and if my rate was not high enough, especially as the client was a huge global acronym firm, that was his problem, not mine. I quit a month later and the firm folded 6 months later.
There seems to be a trend across all disciplines for being a specialist, and software and medicine come to mind. Is there more money to be made as a specialist? That depends, especially on how you market yourself. Or maybe people don't want to be country doctors or Web developers and actually deal with the common person?
I also think some people confuse "niche" for "specialty" which in my mind are two different things.
mp/m