Research vs. Practice
Academic Design Research is too far removed from the current design practice. And that’s holding back the field of design.
As with most fields, design can be broadly divided into academia and practice. Research is an important part of both areas of design. But where design practice is focused on the production of tangible artifacts (products, software etc.), academic design research is often focused solely on the study of design itself. This creates a gap between the practical aspects of the field and the academic research, with most practitioners and practices instead focusing on conducting their own independent research.
Here I’m defining “Academic Design Research”, as the study of design and design methods, as conducted in an academic context. This form of research tends to follow traditional academic norms, including funding from research grants, peer review and publishing in journals. This is in contrast to “User Research” and “Market Research” that is a fundamental part of the design process and is conducted by most design practices.
This is where a clear gap starts to emerge. The academic paper publishing process is built on the traditional scientific research process. But where scientific research is the search for an “objective truth”, the goal of design is to create practical, real-world artifacts [1]. Scientific research can be useful for the larger scientific community even if the results of an experiment are inconclusive, as it then forms the basis of further research. But if design research is not informing the creation of an artifact of some kind, then it ceases to be relevant in the context of design, and new research must begin from scratch, as the cultural context within which the design would have been set may have changed.
One of the main reasons for the gap is the “audience” for academic papers and journals is rarely practicing designers, but other academics. The funding for most academic research (scientific, design or otherwise), comes from institutions and grants, rather than from design practices; so the area of focus, and the output of the research ends up being tailored to that audience [2], with little consideration given to the relevance for design practice.
Another major difference is accountability. Academic design research often lacks any form of accountability beyond a peer review. Once published, the job of the researcher is done. But design practices are often responsible for the outcomes of their design process (including research), especially the economic [3]. If a product fails to meet a brief, it could mean massive losses for a client, and a loss of reputation for the practice itself. This inherent accountability for the results of research is one reason why many practices and companies establish their own in- house research units and don’t rely on academia.
One might argue that there needs to be a wall between academic research and practice to ensure that the research isn’t tainted by an influx of money from private donors or corporations. While this might be true for scientific research, design is by very nature a practical field, and the viability of a design artifact is an important measure of the success of a design.
Why is this important?
It is important to understand that any form of design is contextual, and needs to appeal to the current context of the potential users of that design. These contexts include social, economic, cultural, technological, political
and more. It is also important to acknowledge there will always exist a lag between academia and real world implementation. But even for fields such as medicine, in which innovation is driven by academic research, and the two are closely interlinked, the lag time is 17 years [4] . For design, this could represent a whole generation of people, technology and design methods.
How is design being held back?
Over the last few decades, design has been undergoing a radical shift, and the role of the designer is also changing. As we shift from the model of a designer as a sole visionary and creator, to a facilitator for users and communities, the role of the academic also shifts. No longer is research the goal, but only a means. This also means the role of academia in design will need to shift accordingly. [5]
How might we bridge the gap?
First, design academia needs to understand and clearly define the role it wants to play in the design space, and how this will relate to the real world practice of production artifacts. Design research of any kind will always be a means, not a goal, and so the output needs to be actionable. Creating a system to map the contribution of research towards a particular objective would help drive more actionable research. Seeking funding from design practices and corporations would help move things away from the traditional system of grants. And making the results accessible and open-source would mean that even independent designers or small practices could bring the research into the market.
Academia and practice need to work together to bridge the gap and make full use of the advantages of the “other side” in order to move design forward.
Sources & Citations:
[1]
Gaver, W. (2014). Science and design: The implications of different forms of accountability. In J. Olson, & W. Kellogg (Eds.), Ways of knowing in HCI (pp. 143e165). Springer.
[2]
Marieke Zielhuis, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Daan Andriessen, Pieter Jan Stappers, Making design research relevant for design practice: What is in the way?,
Design Studies,
Volume 78,
[3]
Kok, & Schuit, A. (2012). Contribution mapping: a method for mapping the contribution of research to enhance its impact. Health Research Policy and Systems,2(10).
[4]
Morris, Z. S., Wooding, S., & Grant, J. (2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180
[5]
STOECKER, R. (1999). Are Academics Irrelevant?: Roles for Scholars in
Participatory Research. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(5), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027649921954561