A Systematic Review of Design Research Approaches in Architectural Design Processes
محورهای موضوعی : ArchitectureAmirali Alaie 1 , Nooshin Ziashahabi 2 , Ahmad Ekhlassi 3 , Mohsen Faizi 4 , Seyed Abbas Yazdanfar 5
1 - Ph.D. Candidate, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
2 - Ph.D. Candidate, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
4 - Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
5 - Associate Professor, School of Architecture and Environmental Design, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
کلید واژه: Design Research, Architectural Education, Research about Design, Research through Design, Research for Design, Systematic Review,
چکیده مقاله :
This paper reviews 70 scholarly studies to explore and organize key methodologies in architectural design research through a systematic lens. It is grounded on three widely used frameworks: Frayling's research into, through, and for design; Cross's typology of design knowledge as epistemological, praxeological, and phenomenological; and Buchanan's basic, applied, and clinical research model. The study employed a structured review procedure, following PRISMA guidelines, to evaluate articles from 1982 to 2023 in major scholarly databases. A shared set of strategies and methods was also developed for each type of design research. The proposed conceptual framework—derived from the timing of the research intervention (pre-, through-, or post-design)—provided a more distinct charting of the research landscape. It revealed prevalent clusters of design research practice, each shaped by unique pairs of epistemological emphasis and methodological stance. Based on past studies, this research developed a further typology known as research through design (II), an expansion of the three earlier categories. By offering a distinct and understandable classification, the article aims to assist architecture students, instructors, and novice researchers in selecting the most suitable research approaches. The conclusions enhance the clarity of architectural education and help position design research as a central component of both academic study and professional practice.
This paper reviews 70 scholarly studies to explore and organize key methodologies in architectural design research through a systematic lens. It is grounded on three widely used frameworks: Frayling's research into, through, and for design; Cross's typology of design knowledge as epistemological, praxeological, and phenomenological; and Buchanan's basic, applied, and clinical research model. The study employed a structured review procedure, following PRISMA guidelines, to evaluate articles from 1982 to 2023 in major scholarly databases. A shared set of strategies and methods was also developed for each type of design research. The proposed conceptual framework—derived from the timing of the research intervention (pre-, through-, or post-design)—provided a more distinct charting of the research landscape. It revealed prevalent clusters of design research practice, each shaped by unique pairs of epistemological emphasis and methodological stance. Based on past studies, this research developed a further typology known as research through design (II), an expansion of the three earlier categories. By offering a distinct and understandable classification, the article aims to assist architecture students, instructors, and novice researchers in selecting the most suitable research approaches. The conclusions enhance the clarity of architectural education and help position design research as a central component of both academic study and professional practice.
Akšamija, A. (with EBSCOhost). (2021). Research methods for the architectural profession. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003002932
Archer, B. (1981). A view of the nature of design research. Design: Science: Method, 1, 30–47. https://catedrammo.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/archer_bruce_1981_design_science_method.pdf
Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design Journal, 2(11), 6–13. https://archive.org/download/TheNatureOfResearch/Archer1995Codesign.pdf
Bonsiepe, G. (2007). The Uneasy Relationship between Design and Design Research. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects (pp. 25–39). Birkhäuser Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8472-2_2
Buchanan, R. (2001). Research Design and New Learning. Design Issues, 17, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056
CASP qualitative checklist. (2018). Retrieved from https://casp-uk.net/wpcontent/uploads/2018/01/CASPQualitative-Checklist-2018.pdf
Clemente, V., Tschimmel, K., & Pombo, F. (2017). A Future Scenario for a Methodological Approach Applied to PhD Design Research. Development of an Analytical Canvas. The Design Journal, 20, S792–S802. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353025
Conger, A. (2016). Kappa and Rater Accuracy: Paradigms and Parameters. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416663277
Cross, N. (1999). Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511837
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. In Designerly Ways of Knowing (Vol. 3). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-84628-301-9
Cross, N. (2007). From a Design Science to a Design Discipline: Understanding Designerly Ways of Knowing and Thinking. Design Research Now. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7643-8472-2_3
Cross, N. (2019). Editing Design Studies—And how to improve the likelihood of your paper being published. Design Studies, 63, A1–A9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.06.001
DeSa, S., Gebremeskel, A., Omonaiye, O., & Yaya, S. (2022). Barriers and facilitators to access mental health services among refugee women in high-income countries: A systematic review. Systematic Reviews, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01936-1
Dorst, K. (2008). Design research: A revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies, 29, 4–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.001
Downton, P. (2003). Design research (Reprinted). RMIT University Press. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Design%20research&publication_year=2003&author=Downton%2CP
Findeli, A. (1999). Design research—Introduction. Design Issues, 15, 1–3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1511836
Findeli, A., Brouillet, D., Martin, S., Moineau, C., & Tarrago, R. (2008). Research Through Design and Transdisciplinarity: A Tentative Contribution to the Methodology of Design Research (pp. 67–91). https://hal.science/hal-00995468v1
Forlizzi, J., Zimmerman, J., & Stolterman, E. (2009). From design research to theory: Evidence of a maturing field. Proceedings of IASDR, 9, 2889–2898. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230683193_From_Design_Research_to_Theory_Evidence_of_a_Maturing_Field
Frankel, L., & Racine, M. (2010). The complex field of research: For design, through design, and about design. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2010/researchpapers/43/
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1, 1–5. https://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/
Friedman, K. (2003). Theory Construction in Design Research Criteria. Design Studies, 24, 507–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
Friedman, K. (2008). Research into, by, and for design. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 7, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1386/jvap.7.2.153_1
Groat, L. N., & Wang, D. (2013). Architectural research methods (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Architectural+Research+Methods%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780470908556
Hensel, M. U., & Nilsson, F. (Eds.). (2019). The changing shape of architecture: Further cases of integrating research and design in practice. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315284095
Joost, G., Bredies, K., Christensen, M., Conradi, F., & Unteidig, A. (Eds.). (2016). Design as Research: Positions, Arguments, Perspectives. Birkhäuser. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783035607383
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lee, D., & Lee, H. (2019). Mapping the characteristics of design research in social sciences. Archives of Design Research, 32(4), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2019.11.32.4.39
Luck, R. (2019). Design research, architectural research, architectural design research: An argument on disciplinarity and identity. Design Studies, 65, 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.11.001
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA statement. Br Med J, 8, 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1371/joumal.pmedl000097
Muratovski, G., Friedman, K., Norman, D. A., & Heller, S. (2022). Research for Designers: A guide to methods and practice (Second edition). SAGE Publications. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358872832_Research_for_Designers_A_Guide_to_Methods_and_Practice_2nd_Edition_-_Sample_Text
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473
Schön, D. A. (1992). The Theory of Inquiry: Dewey's Legacy to Education. Curriculum Inquiry, 22(2), 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1992.11076093
Till, J. (2008). Three myths and one model. Building Materials (Dublin), 17, 4–10. https://jeremytill.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/post/attachment/34/2007_Three_Myths_and_One_Model.pdf
Warrens, M. J. (2011). Cohen's kappa is a weighted average. Statistical Methodology, 8(6), 473–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stamet.2011.06.002
