Erin Peavey1, Kiley B Vander Wyst2,3. 1. 1 HKS Knox Advisors, HKS Inc., Dallas, TX, USA. 2. 2 School of Nutrition and Health Promotion, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 3. 3 Medical Education Department, Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article provides critical examination and comparison of the conceptual meaning and underlying assumptions of the concepts evidence-based design (EBD) and research-informed design (RID) in order to facilitate practical use and theoretical development. BACKGROUND: In recent years, EBD has experienced broad adoption, yet it has been simultaneously critiqued for rigidity and misapplication. Many practitioners are gravitating to the term RID to describe their method of integrating knowledge into the design process. However, the term RID lacks a clear definition and the blurring of terms has the potential to weaken advances made integrating research into practice. METHOD: Concept analysis methods from Walker and Avant were used to define the concepts for comparison. RESULTS: Conceptual definitions, process descriptions, examples (i.e., model cases), and methods of evaluation are offered for EBD and RID. Although EBD and RID share similarities in meaning, the two terms are distinct. When comparing evidence based (EB) and research informed, EB is a broad base of information types (evidence) that are narrowly applied (based), while the latter references a narrow slice of information (research) that is broadly applied (informed) to create an end product of design. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the confusion between the use of the concepts EBD and RID arises out of differing perspectives between the way practitioners and academics understand the underlying terms. The authors hope this article serves to generate thoughtful dialogue, which is essential to the development of a discipline, and look forward to the contribution of the readership.
OBJECTIVE: This article provides critical examination and comparison of the conceptual meaning and underlying assumptions of the concepts evidence-based design (EBD) and research-informed design (RID) in order to facilitate practical use and theoretical development. BACKGROUND: In recent years, EBD has experienced broad adoption, yet it has been simultaneously critiqued for rigidity and misapplication. Many practitioners are gravitating to the term RID to describe their method of integrating knowledge into the design process. However, the term RID lacks a clear definition and the blurring of terms has the potential to weaken advances made integrating research into practice. METHOD: Concept analysis methods from Walker and Avant were used to define the concepts for comparison. RESULTS: Conceptual definitions, process descriptions, examples (i.e., model cases), and methods of evaluation are offered for EBD and RID. Although EBD and RID share similarities in meaning, the two terms are distinct. When comparing evidence based (EB) and research informed, EB is a broad base of information types (evidence) that are narrowly applied (based), while the latter references a narrow slice of information (research) that is broadly applied (informed) to create an end product of design. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the confusion between the use of the concepts EBD and RID arises out of differing perspectives between the way practitioners and academics understand the underlying terms. The authors hope this article serves to generate thoughtful dialogue, which is essential to the development of a discipline, and look forward to the contribution of the readership.
Entities:
Keywords:
concept analysis; design research; evidence-based practice; healthcare design; interdisciplinary research; research in practice; research methodology