Evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of design methods: A systematic review and assessment framework

IF 3.2 1区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING Design Studies Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.destud.2023.101204
Philip Cash, Jaap Daalhuizen, Paul Hekkert
{"title":"Evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of design methods: A systematic review and assessment framework","authors":"Philip Cash,&nbsp;Jaap Daalhuizen,&nbsp;Paul Hekkert","doi":"10.1016/j.destud.2023.101204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The increasingly transdisciplinary context of design, where designers collaborate with other disciplinary and domain experts, means there is a growing need to evidence the effectiveness of design methods. We address this need in two ways. First, we propose a ‘chain of evidence’, from motivation to claims, operationalising this in a systematic assessment framework. Second, we systematically review current design method research. Our results reveal that while all links in the chain of evidence are reported across the literature and best practices can be identified, no individual paper either reports all links or consistently achieves best practice. Our framework and results demonstrate the need for standards of evidence in this area, with implications for design method research, development, education, and practice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50593,"journal":{"name":"Design Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Design Studies","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X23000455","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The increasingly transdisciplinary context of design, where designers collaborate with other disciplinary and domain experts, means there is a growing need to evidence the effectiveness of design methods. We address this need in two ways. First, we propose a ‘chain of evidence’, from motivation to claims, operationalising this in a systematic assessment framework. Second, we systematically review current design method research. Our results reveal that while all links in the chain of evidence are reported across the literature and best practices can be identified, no individual paper either reports all links or consistently achieves best practice. Our framework and results demonstrate the need for standards of evidence in this area, with implications for design method research, development, education, and practice.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估设计方法的有效性和有效性:一个系统的审查和评估框架
设计的跨学科背景越来越多,设计师与其他学科和领域的专家合作,这意味着越来越需要证明设计方法的有效性。我们通过两种方式满足这一需求。首先,我们提出了一个“证据链”,从动机到主张,在一个系统的评估框架中进行操作。其次,系统回顾了当前设计方法的研究现状。我们的研究结果表明,虽然文献中报告了证据链中的所有环节,并且可以确定最佳实践,但没有一篇论文报告了所有环节或始终达到最佳实践。我们的框架和结果表明,在这一领域需要证据标准,这对设计方法的研究、开发、教育和实践都有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Design Studies
Design Studies 工程技术-工程:制造
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Design Studies is a leading international academic journal focused on developing understanding of design processes. It studies design activity across all domains of application, including engineering and product design, architectural and urban design, computer artefacts and systems design. It therefore provides an interdisciplinary forum for the analysis, development and discussion of fundamental aspects of design activity, from cognition and methodology to values and philosophy. Design Studies publishes work that is concerned with the process of designing, and is relevant to a broad audience of researchers, teachers and practitioners. We welcome original, scientific and scholarly research papers reporting studies concerned with the process of designing in all its many fields, or furthering the development and application of new knowledge relating to design process. Papers should be written to be intelligible and pertinent to a wide range of readership across different design domains. To be relevant for this journal, a paper has to offer something that gives new insight into or knowledge about the design process, or assists new development of the processes of designing.
期刊最新文献
From an ethics of the eyes to ethics of the bodies: Rethinking ethics in design research through sensory practices Transforming mature design management to better firm performance: The importance of top management involvement Interior design ways of knowing: Embracing unpredictability That was fun, now what?: Modelizing knowledge dynamics to explain co-design's shortcomings Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1