This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]

On: 18 March 2015, At: 16:53

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Design

Creativity and Innovation
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
[Link]

An overview of research methods in

visual communication design education
a
Jesvin Puay-Hwa Yeo
a
School of Art, Design and Media, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore
Published online: 24 May 2013.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Jesvin Puay-Hwa Yeo (2014) An overview of research methods in visual
communication design education, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 2:1,
51-62, DOI: 10.1080/21650349.2013.794720

To link to this article: [Link]

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at [Link]
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015
 International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 2014
Vol. 2, No. 1, 51–62, [Link]

An overview of research methods in visual communication

design education
Jesvin Puay-Hwa Yeo*

School of Art, Design and Media, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

(Received 29 June 2012; final version received 9 April 2013)

The article presents a review of studies done on research in visual communication

design education. According to reviews, the design practice in visual communication
design education has shifted from an emphasis on training in traditional vocational
courses to a focus on research being integral to the course; this prompted this article to
examine the use of research in postgraduate and undergraduate programs and evaluate
the debate over research methods applicable to the field. This article includes a brief
definition of visual communication design, an overview of commonly used methods for
visual communication design education such as Action Research and Reflective
Practice, as well as an outline of research emphasis in visual communication design at
postgraduate level. In addition, this article provides a brief overview on the nature of
problem in undergraduate studies, such as lack of appropriate models of research
practice in visual communication design education, and also the need for early training
in the research discipline for visual communication in undergraduate studies.
Keywords: research methodology; design research; art and design education; visual
communication design

1. Introduction
There is a consensus among educational researchers on the growing importance of
research in higher education in the field of art and design (Newbury, 1996a; Yee, 2010).
Yee (2010) states that the emergence of “a number of major international conferences
dedicated to doctoral research reflects the growing interest in the nature of research and
practice of the field” (p. 2). The understanding and application of research theory and
research methods have become essential elements in research-based design management
universities (Kennedy, 1997). The design practice in visual communication design
education shifted from an emphasis on training in traditional vocational courses to a focus
on research being integral to the course, signaling a transformation in higher education in
design. The design practice in visual communication design education has become more
reflexive and multidisciplinary, in the sense that it now seeks an understanding of research
methodologies, in both classical disciplines and cultural studies, as one of the key
components that allow creativity to flourish (Bennett, 2006).
Concurrently, the challenge for design education is to move the teaching of practical
design skills only to equipping a graduate with lifelong learning skills to succeed in the

*Email: jesvinyeo@[Link]

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

 52 J.P.-H. Yeo

ever-evolving design industry. Brown (2012) said, as “the world’s problems have become
more complex, the traditional design process has been challenged” (p. 18). Brown goes on
to emphasize that designers need to learn scientific methodology because it enables
designers “to ask more of the right questions, come up with better hypotheses, design
effective experiments and most importantly, share our learning” (p. 20).
One possible way to enhance design practice is to provide the know-how of conducting
research, as a positive addition to the design students’ skill set; research study also
“enhances their physical output as it expands their creative freedom” (Bennett, 2006,
p. 13). As defined by Khoury and Khoury (2009), “research is an insightful method for the
generation of meaningful design” (p. 837). This further supports the rationale that our
future designers need to be equipped with research knowledge to be innovative in design.
With the increase in the number of students opting for courses in art and design
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

(Hockey & Allen-Collinson, 2000; Newbury, 1995; Yee, 2010), it is important to inculcate
in the students the value of research study and its relevance to the design field. With
reference to the intake of art and design students, Newbury (1995) mentions that “certainly
in the United Kingdom . . . the number of research students registered for higher degrees
has more than doubled in the last five years” (p. 53). The art and design departments in
universities have also expanded rapidly in recent years, certainly in the UK (Newbury,
1995, p. 53) and in Singapore, the knowledge and skills to conduct research have become
necessary components in undergraduate and graduate programs (Bennett, 2006). Hence,
this article seeks to provide an overview of the use of methods in research projects in the
field of design education, particularly in visual communication design, and highlights their
importance to this field.

1.1 A brief definition of visual communication design

The definition of visual communication design is subject to various interpretations as it is
often used interchangeably with terms such as graphic design and graphic communication.
McCoy (1998) describes the birth of visual communication design as “a spontaneous
response to the communication needs of the industrial revolution in capitalist market-
based economies” (p. 3). As technology changes, so does the application of visual
communication design in tandem with technological advancement, which broadly
encompasses art and design, from typography and illustration to motion graphics and web
design. According to Swanson (1998), visual communication design “should be about
meaning and how meaning can be created . . . it is about expression and the mass
dissemination of information” (p. 27).
For practitioners (i.e., graphic designers, advertising designers, art directors, and visual
artists), visual communication design is framed around the creation of meaningful imagery
that conveys ideas and messages to a specific audience or the general public through a
variety of visual technologies (often combined) – whether for reasons of persuasion,
entertainment, information, or enlightenment (Meggs, 2005).

2. Research methods in visual communication design education

2.1 Overview of research methods in visual communication design education
One might consider research in design education to be part of an inherent set of
questioning processes; Friedman (2003) describes research as simply a way of asking
questions. According to Durling, research seeks to “ask questions, select appropriate
methods, test the questions, analyse the results, and disseminate the conclusions
 International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 53

unambiguously” (2002, p. 81). Yee (2007) counters that the process of asking questions in
design is often hidden, carried, and adapted, whereas research has to be open, rigorous, and
replicable. Instead of focusing on the differences, Newbury (1996b) lists four common
criteria of research that apply to any field of study, including art and design. He asserts that
regardless of the academic discipline, research ought to be systematic, rigorous, critical,
reflexive, and communicable. Yee (2007) affirms this by referring to Archer’s (1995)
definition of research as a “systematic enquiry whose goal is communicable knowledge”
(p. 6), before going on to identify suitable methods for practice-based research such as
Action Research (McNiff, 1988) and Reflective Practice (Schön, 1987).
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

2.1.1 Action Research

The introduction of Action Research is widely attributed to Lewin (1946), whose formula
encompasses a cycle of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting. By applying this
method to real-life situations in which the researcher becomes an involved participant, the
solutions are assessed for the results they produce, allowing the researcher sufficient scope
to analyze and revise the plan to improve the situation, and then start the process all over
again in a continuous spiral (Charles & Ward, 2007).
In data-driven Action Research, generation, intervention, and testing of theory coexist
in an iterative circle (Checkland, 1991). In contrast, theory-driven research “becomes a
process of extending, refining or challenging existing knowledge” (Yee, 2007, p. 5) by
allowing existing literature and knowledge to generate creative ideas. Hart (1998) and
Swann (2002) propagate an imaginative approach to research. According to Hart (1998), it
entails
having a broad view of a topic; being open to ideas regardless of how or where they
originated; questioning and scrutinizing ideas, methods and arguments regardless of who
proposes them; playing with different ideas in order to see if links can be made; following
ideas to see where they might lead. (p. 30)
Action Research “underpinned and guided the research processes” (Saikaly, 2005,
p. 9) of various proposed alternative research methods (e.g., Findeli, 2008; Findeli,
Brouillet, Martin, Moineau, & Tarrago, 2008; Marshall & Newton, 2000; Sevaldson,
2000). The “action” usually occurs in the course of producing the creative output. And art
and design researchers have either renamed Action Research (Findeli, 2008; Sevaldson,
2000) or presented it as alternative methods (Marshall & Newton, 2000) for design
research. These are highlighted below:
(1) Findeli (2008) described Action Research as “project-grounded research.” It stems
from projects that implement a systematic process aimed at seeking and acquiring
knowledge of the world, we live in by looking through “designerly” lenses.
(2) Sevaldson (2000) brought forward a generic model for design research, the
“integrated conglomerate approach.” The “action” occurs in the course of learning
through doing and exploration through practice.
(3) The “grounding research in practice” approach of Marshall and Newton (2000)
asserts the necessity for research to exist in the context of practice for the purpose
of refining the activity based on the tested propositions, wherein the engagement is
more concerned with practical considerations rather than the rigor of the research
methods used.
(4) Jonas and Chow (2008) also mention that Action Research is usually known as
“research through design” elsewhere in design research.
 54 J.P.-H. Yeo

2.1.2 Reflective Practice

Nickols (2000) concluded that there are three distinct types of knowledge: explicit,
implicit, and tacit. Explicit knowledge is “existing” knowledge that has already been
expressed through words, data, formulae, specifications, and other tangible means (Lee,
Foo, & Goh, 2006). Knowledge that has not been articulated but can be identified and
expressed by observing the behavior or performance of someone who is competent is
implicit (Nickols, 2000). Tacit knowledge, however, is a kind of inherent knowledge
gained from experience, intuition, or emotions that cannot be articulated. Polanyi (1997)
simply explains it as that scenario in which “we know more than we can tell.” Examining
the diverse definitions of tacit knowledge by various authors on the subject, Haron (2005)
found that the “concepts of personal, experientially acquired, goal attainment values and
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

collective” were the most commonly associated with this kind of knowledge.
Design, as a practical discipline, often produces tacit knowledge. Schön (1987)
describes this as “knowing-in-action,” which a professional performs intuitively and can
be observed from the patterns of his/her behavior. Schön also recognizes the use of
“reflection-in-action” as a thought process of professionals where they stumble upon an
unpredicted outcome in the middle of a task, become aware of it, analyze its effect and
respond by making changes to their actions. Rust (2004) had linked tacit knowledge with
research by illustrating how tacit contributions to design inquiry can help to create
knowledge and establish a research model for both design and natural sciences.
The current trend seems to favor “reflective enquiry into practice” (Yee, 2007) for the
study of visual communication. Loughran (2002) puts reflective inquiry into practice in the
context of “purpose, framing, and articulation.” By distinguishing a problem or situation
that forms the purpose of the research at the onset, students can frame (and reframe) the issue
as their perspectives change in the course of the design process, all the while recording their
thoughts and decisions for further and deeper reflection. Schön (1992) observes that “the
designer constructs the design world within which he/she sets the dimensions of his/her
problem space, and invents the moves by which he/she attempts to find solutions” (p. 142).
With greater reflection being put into words, there is a lot more knowledge that can be
gleaned from the design practice, as “designers put things together and bring new things into
being, dealing in the process with many variables and constraints, some initially known and
some discovered through designing” (Schön, 1987, pp. 41– 42).
Glanville (2003) and van Schaik (2000, 2003) claim that Reflective Research is an
effective approach for design research, as it requires students to reflect on their research
process through “abstraction of themes, testing and re-abstracting—a distillation”
(Glanville & van Schaik, 2003, p. 37). Also, by reflecting on their own work, students can
not only understand how they themselves do things, but also magnify their knowledge and
ability through a line of questioning that probes deeper into their area of research and helps
them crystallize their thoughts. Through Reflective Research, Glanville and van Schaik are
more concerned about the “how” than the “what” of a research process, as they find that
design is a process more than an outcome, and therefore is more revealing when studied
throughout its various stages of activity. Similarly, Yee (2007) has used Reflective
Research to understanding her own practice, especially on research projects that involved
multidisciplinary research teams.

2.2 Research emphasis in visual communication design at postgraduate level

Since the late 1990s, there have been several studies on research methodology in art and
design education. However, these studies have been conducted mainly in Western
 International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 55

countries and at master’s or doctoral levels. According to the reviews, most of these
studies focused on developing appropriate models of practice in research education and
training (James, 2003; Jonas & Chow, 2008; Marshall & Newton, 2000; Saikaly, 2005;
Schön, 1992; Sevaldson, 2000; Soares & Pombo, 2010; Yee & Bremner, 2011). The
proposed models included imaginative approach, reflective practice or inquiry,
“designerly” method, design as research, interpretation approach, bricolage method, and
visual research methods.1 Mimoso (2011) states that as the research training in “art and
design is at a formative phase” (p. 4), there is a need to devise alternative methods for art
and design research, especially since it is practice led. She further urges that it is important
to develop a language of research for communication between researchers in art and
design disciplines, as well as to demonstrate their research process and findings to other
academic disciplines.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

Allison (1992) set out seven general categories of research methods used in art and
design: historical, philosophical, experimental, comparative, descriptive, naturalistic, and
practical. Yee (2010) and Gray and Malins (1993) identify the first four as being “classic”
research methodologies widely accepted in the research community, whereas the last three
are more closely related to artistic practice than scientific research.
Unlike science, the humanities often refer to metaphysics (such as theology,
philosophy, and ethics) and the arts (such as literature, art, and music). Noting the
subjective nature of the arts, Archer (1995) outlines the value of art research as
expression in appropriate media; creative reflection on human experience; the qualitative
interpretation of meaning in human expression; judgements of worth; the exploration of truth
values in text; the categorisation of ideas, people, things and events; and the tracing of, and
commentary upon, the provenance of ideas, people, things and events. (p. 8)
Some of the common qualitative methodologies used by social science researchers that
are also appropriate for art and design researchers are phenomenological, hermeneutic,
axiological, ethnographic, holistic, naturalistic, descriptive, experiential, and dialectical
strategies (Gray & Malins, 1993).

2.2.1 The alternative research methods

An emergent trend in design research draws from visual anthropology, ethnomethodo­
logical and other sociology methods. This includes approaches wherein the researcher
creates visual representations to study society, examines current images that provide
information about society, and collaborates “with social actors in the production of visual
representations” through stills or film cameras (Banks, 1995).
Also, other researchers developed technological tools to support the emerging concept
of design thinking. For example, Jonas and Chow (2008) propagate the use of an integrated
knowledge and communication platform for Research Through Design, which led to the
development of Matching Analysis Projection Synthesis, an instrument that supports both
scientific and “designerly” methods. It is designed to help researchers create a suitable
interface combining appropriate practice-led design, innovation, and research processes
through the generic process of analysis, projection, and synthesis, geared toward
producing artifacts and new knowledge as research outcomes.
This is similar to the pick-and-mix concept of bricolage (Yee, 2010), which requires a
greater awareness and understanding of different kinds of research methodologies. The
concept of bricolage, which was coined by Levi-Strauss (1966), is described by Yee and
Bremner (2011) as “making-do” and “a bricoleur (someone who employs the bricolage
method) is described as a resourceful and creative ‘fiddler or tinkerer’, and one who out of
 56 J.P.-H. Yeo

necessity uses available materials to create new objects from existing ones” (p. 3). Gregory
Bateson (Kanu, 2009) uses the analogy of a pair of binoculars to explain the concept,
likening it to looking at the same thing through different lenses, giving the subject a wider
range of perspectives.
However, there is another camp of research scholars (Jones, 1980; Lawson, 1990) who
are against borrowing existing research methodology from the sciences and humanities.
As Cross (1999) puts it, “we do not have to turn design into an imitation of science, nor do
we have to treat design as a mysterious ineffable art” (p. 7). Gray and Malins (1993) have
identified distinct research procedures used in the design field that can be seen as rigorous
– invention, selection, synthesis, analysis, development, refinement, and resolution. They
observe that most design methods are based on a structure that broadly covers “collection
of data (visual, written, oral), selection, analysis and synthesis, testing against known
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

visual and performance norms, human reactions and responses, and compromise with
regard to context, function, ergonomics, manufacturing & material constraints” and still
leaves scope for “human intuition, emotion and invention” (p. 8).

2.2.2 Summary of approaches to design research

Recent studies outlined by Saikaly (2003, 2005) suggest that there are three approaches to
design research in an academic context:
(1) The sciences and humanities approaches, which are “the systematic and
methodical approaches to research.” These approaches can be described as
academic research with a planned procedure, and are commonly used in social
sciences, the arts, and humanities research. They come in the format of a formal
research procedure: identification of a problem area or topic; a review of literature;
a detailed plan of research design; a process of collection and analysis of data,
reports, and discussion of the findings; identification of limitations; and proposal
of future research direction.
(2) The practice-centered approach, in which the development of design projects is
considered a form of research. In this approach, creative design methods and
practical design activities are used as the fundamental tools of the research.
(3) The practice-based approach, in which the development of design projects is not
the objective of the research but a means to knowledge. This approach is
comparable to Action Research and it employs discovery through action (design
practice) to seek new knowledge.
Various studies consider the first approach of sciences and humanities inappropriate
for conducting design research, largely because it appears alien to many designers and
artists (James, 2003) and lacks design practice components such as the making process and
the creative output (Franz, 2000; Saikaly, 2003, 2005; Siu, 2007; Yee, 2007, 2009, 2010).
The second approach, the practice-centered approach, is the newest and most debated
approach. Two design professors, Anthony Dunne at the Royal College of Art in London
and Fiona Raby at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna, in particular have
experimented with these unorthodox design methodologies to produce provocative design
responses.
The third approach, the practice-based approach, is the most commonly used in art and
design research (e.g., Findeli, 2001; Franz, 2000; Glanville & van Schaik, 2003; Marshall
& Newton, 2000; Sevaldson, 2000; Sheth, 2000; Yammiyavar, 2000). This is mainly
because this approach uses design practice to discover and seek new understanding and the
 International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 57

“research processes are iterative, reflective, interpretive and dialectical” (Saikaly, 2005,
p. 9). A good example are the “cultural probes” by Gaver, Dunne, and Pacenti (1999), a
creative method for doing research through design that enables the researcher to look for
ways to open new spaces for design.
However, the legacy of Strand’s position (1998), which reported that design research is
not considered a genuine research activity because it lacks “original and systematic
investigation” and is not “verifiable publicly through publication and peer review” (p. 7),
although much improved is still an issue. So, in order for design research to gain
recognition from the academic body, the focus should not be only on what type of research
methods are more suitable for the domain of design research, but also on knowing how to
conduct formal/academically valid research procedures (the “how” of design research), so
that “original” ideas can be derived from the research process and subsequently used to
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

produce the creative output.

2.3 The nature of the problem in visual communication education

At present, majority of undergraduate and postgraduate core courses in visual
communication are project focused and students are not necessarily taught research
methodologies as part of the discipline. Khoury and Khoury (2009) attribute the reasons
for the lack of knowledge and skills in research methods to the following situation. Even
though undergraduate students are currently being taught numerous artistic and technical
skills, there is often a lack of emphasis in teaching visual communication students how to
conduct research, analyze data, interpret results, and write reports.
This observation is supported by various studies that illustrated the lack of appropriate
models of practice in research and education in visual communication (Mimoso, 2011;
Newbury, 1996c; Strouse & Arnold, 2009).
. Mimoso (2011) found that “many students did not have skills in information
retrieval and management, the lack of which can frustrate the development of a
research project” (p. 5).
. Newbury (1996c) contended that “a more systematic and rigorous approach [is
needed] to understanding and referring to previously completed research, and to
communicating research findings to the field” (p. 216).
. Strouse and Arnold (2009) based on Tornello (2003) reported that “the majority of
design programmes in the United States expect students to experiment and innovate
their own methods and approaches without equipping those students with
fundamental knowledge about research” (p. 1135).
Many researchers have also noted the importance of teaching research methodology.
Coumans (2011), Hockey and Allen-Collinson (2000), and Strouse and Arnold (2009)
agree that to contribute to the design process as well as to produce a more robust design
practice, it is essential that students should be well aware of the origins of the methodologies
being used as well as the kind of data that can be obtained and how it applies to their study.
Heller (1998) reinforces the importance of teaching research methods by stating the
possibility of negative effects on the lack of knowledge and skills in research methods:
. Students who focus on the acquisition of technical skills tend to adopt a surface
approach to learning, rather than lifelong self-initiated learning.
. Students who regard education as a passive process may be discouraged from further
growth in a challenging graduate study environment.
 58 J.P.-H. Yeo

3. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of research methods in visual
communication design education and the debates on the research methodologies most
suited for communication design education. The review of research methods in visual
communication design education identified three key tenets:

(1) Knowledge and skills in research can be viewed as a key intangible asset for
design practice (Glanville & van Schaik, 2003; Schön, 1983, 1987; Yee, 2007).
(2) Design research (i) has to be systematic as it is carried out in a methodical and
organized manner; (ii) should be rigorous as it is carried out in a domain that
requires the application of precise and exacting standards; and (iii) is an inquiry as
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

it is to determine facts or to seek answers to questions (Coumans, 2011; Cross,

1984; Hockey & Allen-Collinson, 2000; Strouse & Arnold, 2009).
(3) Design education is filled with many alternative research methods because several
researchers found it necessary to propose their “own” approaches while doing
design research. This led to considerable confusion in design research (Camino,
2010) since “the research tradition in this field is very young” (Sevaldson, 2000,
p. 163).

The above indicates that the knowledge and research skills at all levels of
communication design education should start from the basics, i.e., how to conduct
research in a step-by-step manner with precision and rigor. Design students should not be
overwhelmed with different research approaches, either traditional or alternative methods.
Papastergiardis (2002) has also stated “the main problem with developing a research
culture in an art school is not to do with the angst of creativity, but with the structure of
research” (p. 9).
Furthermore, Saikaly (2003) has stated that contributors from other scientific
disciplines, such as Herbert Simon, have led to the reconsideration of the epistemological
and methodological issues of design research (p. 10). Thus, further studies in this field
should focus on the main steps of research – such as identifying research topics and
research questions, selecting relevant contexts and subjects, collecting relevant data,
analyzing and interpreting data, and discussing and presenting findings – to seek an
understanding on whether the process of research can influence students’ achievement in
terms of creative output and design process.
In addition to enhance creative output and design process, user-centered design that
characterized as a multi-stage problem solving process is another possible area for future
study in design research. User-centered design whether done for users, by users, or with
users (Norman & Draper, 1986) is a design philosophy and approach that places users at
the center of the design process from the stages of planning and designing the system
requirements to implementing and testing the product (Baek, Cagiltay, Boling, & Frick,
2008). User-centered design approaches including Participatory Design (inspired by
Cooperative Design) which all stakeholders such as users are actively involved in the
design process as co-designers by empowering them to propose and generate design ideas
that addresses their specific needs (Schuler & Namioka, 1993); and Contextual Design is
another user-centered design process which incorporates ethnographic methods for
gathering data from users which are relevant to the design of a system or a product (Beyer
& Holtzblatt, 1998). Above all directions that proposed for future studies, the process of
research needs to be continually and systematically investigated and studied as being
fundamental to conducting design research.
 International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 59

Note
1. The imaginative approach, also known as research imagination, is about having a broad view of
a topic; being open to ideas regardless of how or where they originated; questioning and
scrutinizing ideas, methods and arguments regardless of who proposes them; playing with
different ideas in order to see if links can be made; following ideas to see where they might lead
(Hart, 1998, p. 30).
The reflective practice or inquiry involves thoughtfully considering one’s own experiences in
applying knowledge to practice while being coached by professionals in the discipline (Schön,
1996). It focuses on design as an inquiry rather than design as a problem-solving.
Designerly method refers to the practice-based research procedures conducted by the designer,
in which the mode of problem solving is “solution-focused,” and the mode of thinking is
“constructive” (Cross, 1982).
Design as research is a research process initiated for the purposes of enriching or modifying
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

aspects of a particular profession. The process is influenced by Schön (1992), where he observes
that “the designer constructs the design world within which he/she sets the dimensions of his/her
problem space, and invents the moves by which he/she attempts to find solutions” (p. 142).
Interpretation approach employs interpretation as a method to build a new rationality:
constructing material culture, holding as a reference the user, ultimate recipient for the projected
product. Specifically, understanding (material or immaterial culture) through dialectics among
and within all players (people, context, culture, complexity of factors, and time) and abduction
(logical inference, reasoning to evaluate, and explain through the process of attribution of
meaning; Soares & Pombo, 2010, p. 1).
The bricolage method consists of combining methods from the social sciences, humanities, and
hard sciences to derive a suitable model of inquiry (Yee & Bremner, 2011).
Visual research methods are a form of research that uses drawings, photography, and other
visual forms to produce visual representations (studying society by producing images), to
examine pre-existing visual representations (studying images for information about society), or
to collaborate with social actors (people) in the production of visual representations (Banks,
1995).

References
Allison, B. (1992). Allison research index of art & design. Leicester: Leicester Expertise.
Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design, Interdisciplinary Journal of Design, 1(2),
6 – 13.
Baek, E.-O., Cagiltay, K., Boling, E., & Frick, T. (2008). User-centered design and development. In
J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. van Merrienboer & M. F. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of
research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659– 670). New York:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Banks, M. (1995). Visual research methods. Social Research Update 11. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/SRU11/[Link]
Bennett, A. (2006). Design studies: Theory and research in graphic design. New York: Princeton
Architectural Press.
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San
Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Brown, T. (2012). From blueprint to genetic code: The merits of an evolutionary approach to design.
Rotman Magazine, Spring, 16 – 21.
Camino, M. (2010). An examination of the journal used as a vehicle to bring about a synthesis
between theory and practice in art and design higher education. Journal of Writing in Creative
Practice, 3(3), 317– 340.
Charles, L., & Ward, N. (2007). Generating change through research: Action research and its
implications. Retrieved from [Link]
Checkland, P. B. (1991). From framework through experience to learning: The essential nature of
action research. In H. E. Nissen, H. K. Klein & R. Hirschheim (Eds.), Information systems
research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 397– 403). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Coumans, A. (2011). Muscular design. PreDesign Forum. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/[Link]/page/musculardesign
 60 J.P.-H. Yeo

Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221– 227.
Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5 – 10.
Durling, D. (2002). Discourses on research and the PhD in design. Quality Assurance in Education,
10(2), 79 –85.
Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: theoretical, methodological,
and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5 – 17.
Findeli, A. (2008). Searching for design research questions: Some conceptual clarifications. In
Questions & hypotheses (pp. 286– 302). Berlin: DRN Learning Conference.
Findeli, A., Brouillet, D., Martin, S., Moineau, C., & Tarrago, C. (2008, May). Research through
design and transdisciplinarity: A tentative contribution to the methodology of design research.
Presented at the Swiss Design Network Symposium, Berne, Switzerland.
Franz, J. (2000). An interpretative-contextual framework for research in and through design.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

Proceedings doctoral education in design: Foundations for the future. La Clusaz: OUTePrints.
Retrieved from [Link] .
Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: Criteria, approaches, and methods.
Design Studies, 24, 507–522.
Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21 – 29.
Glanville, R. (2003). An irregular dodekahedron and a lemon yellow Citroen. In L. van Schaik (Ed.),
The practice of practice (pp. 258– 265). Melbourne: RMIT Press.
Glanville, R., & van Schaik, L. (2003). Designing reflections: Reflections on design. In D. Durling &
S. Kazuo, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd doctoral education in design conference (pp. 35 – 42).
Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba.
Gray, C., & Malins, J. (1993). Research procedures/methodology for artists & designers. In W.
Callaway, K. Crouan, & L. Davis (Eds.), Principles and definitions: Five papers by the
European postgraduate art & design group. Winchester: Winchester School of Art & Design.
Haron, H., & Alias, R. A. (2005). Conceptualization of tacit knowledge dimension. Proceedings of
the postgraduate annual research seminar. Johor Bahru: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Retrieved from [Link]
Knowledge_Dimension.pdf
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research. London: Sage.
Heller, S. (1998). The education of a graphic designer. New York: Allworth Press.
Hockey, J., & Allen-Collinson, J. (2000). The supervision of practice-based research degrees in art
and design. Journal of Art & Design Education, 19(3), 345– 355.
James, D. D. (2003). A working model for postgraduate practice based research across the creative
arts. The third doctoral education in design conference (DED3) proceedings. Tsukuba:
University of Tsukuba. Retrieved from [Link]
d_final_paper/d_02.pdf
Jonas, W., & Chow, R. (2008). Far beyond dualisms in methodology – An integrative design
research methodology medium. Paper presented at DRS Conference Undisciplined!, Sheffield,
UK.
Jones, J. C. (1980). Design methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Kanu, Y. (2009). Curriculum as cultural practice: Postcolonial imaginations. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Kennedy, M. (1997). Connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher, 26(7),
4 – 12.
Khoury, M. P., & Khoury, T. E. (2009). Writing & research for graphic design within undergraduate
studies. In D. Durling, T. Poldma & A. Valtonen, (Eds.), International association of societies of
design research: Proceedings of the 3rd IASDR world conference on design research
(pp. 839– 846). Seoul: Society of Design Science.
Lawson, B. R. (1990). How designers think. London: Butterworth Architecture.
Lee, C. K., Foo, S., & Goh, D. H. (2006). On the concept and types of knowledge. Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management, 5(2), 151– 163.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34 – 46.
Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching.
Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33 – 43.
 International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation 61

Marshall, T., & Newton, S. (2000). Scholarly design as a paradigm for practice-based research. In
Working papers in art and design, 1. Retrieved from [Link]
earch/papers/wpades/vol1/[Link]
McCoy, K. (1998). Education in an adolescent profession. In S. Heller (Ed.), The education of a
graphic designer (pp. 3 – 12). New York: Allworth Press.
McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.
Meggs, P. B. (2005). History of graphic design (4th ed.) Revised by Alston W. Purvis. New York:
Wiley.
Newbury, D. (1995). A journey in research, from research assistant to Doctor of Philosophy. Journal
of Graduate Education, 2, 53 – 59.
Newbury, D. (1996a). The research training needs of postgraduates in art and design: A practical
response. Paper presented at the international conference on art and design research, No Guru,
No Method? Helsinki, Finland.
Newbury, D. (1996b). Knowledge and research in art and design. Design Studies, 17(2), 215–219.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

Newbury, D. (1996c). A journey in research, from research assistant to Doctor of Philosophy.

Journal of Graduate Education, 2(2), 53 – 59.
Nickols, F. W. (2000). The knowledge in knowledge management. In J. W. Cortada & J. A. Woods
(Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook 2000 – 2001 (pp. 12 – 21). Boston, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1986). User centered system design: New perspectives on human–
computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Papastergiardis, N. (2002). Melancholy moments and the art of research. Campus Review 3 p.
Polanyi, M. (1997). Tacit knowledge. In L. Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in organizations. Boston, MA:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rust, C. (2004). Design enquiry: Tacit knowledge and invention in science. Design Issues, 20(4),
76 – 85.
Saikaly, F. (2003). Design re-thinking: Some issues about doctoral programmes in design. Paper
presented at the Techné: Design Wisdom: 5th European Academy of Design Conference,
Barcelona.
Saikaly, F. (2005). Approaches to design research: towards the designerly way. Paper presented at
the 6th international conference of the European academy of design, Design System Evolution.
Bremen, Germany. Retrieved from [Link]
Schön, D. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with materials of a design situation. Research
in Engineering Design, 3, 131–147.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series. San Francisco; London:
Jossey-Bass.
Schön, D. A. (1996). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and
learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sevaldson, B. (2000). The integrated conglomerate approach: A suggestion for a generic model of
design research. In D. Durling & K. Friedman (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference doctoral
education in design: Foundations for the future (pp. 163–170). Staffordshire: Staffordshire
University Press.
Sheth, S. (2000). Refocusing praxis: The problem for design research. In S. Pizzocaro, A. Arruda &
D. De Moraes (Eds.), Design plus research, Milano, 18 – 12 May 2000 (pp. 366– 369). Milano,
Italy: the Ph.D. Programme in industrial design, Politecnico di Milano.
Siu, K. W. M. (2007). Balance in research and practice: The reform of research studies in industrial
and product design. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 11(1), 15 – 28.
Soares, L., & Pombo, F. (2010). Interpretation as a design method. In D. Durling (Ed.), Design &
complexity. International conference of design research society (DRS), 7 – 8 July (pp. 1 – 8).
Montreal: Université de Montreal.
Strand, D. (1998). Research in the creative arts. Canberra: DETYA.
Strouse, R., & Arnold, J. (2009). Design research in undergraduate design education: Relevance and
implementation. Proceedings of the 3rd IASDR world conference on design research,
International association of societies of design research. Seoul: Korean Society of Design
 62 J.P.-H. Yeo

Science. Retrieved from [Link]

Design%20Education/Design%20Research%20in%20Undergraduate%20Design%20Education
%20-%20Relevance%20and%[Link]
Swanson, G. (1998). Liberal arts and graphic design: Six cautionary questions. In S. Heller (Ed.), The
education of a graphic designer (pp. 23 – 29). New York: Allworth Press.
Swann, C. (2002). Action research and the practice of design. Design Issues, 18(2), 49 – 61.
Tornello, M. (2003). Practice and education: Benchmarking user-centered research in industrial
design. Arizona: Arizona State University.
van Schaik, L. (2000). Interstitial modernism. Melbourne: RMIT Press.
van Schaik, L. (2003). The practice of practice: Research in the medium of design. Melbourne:
RMIT University Press.
Yammiyavar, P. (2000). Is industrial design research really different from other research?
In S. Pizzocaro, A. Arruda & D. De Moraes (Eds.), Design plus research, Milano, 18 – 12 May
2000 (pp. 251– 257). Milano, Italy: the Ph.D. Programme in Industrial Design, Politecnico di
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 16:54 18 March 2015

Milano.
Yee, J. (2007). Connecting practice to research (and back to practice): Making the leap from design
practice to design research. Journal of Design Principles and Practices, 1(1), 81 – 90.
Yee, J. (2009). Capturing tacit knowledge: Documenting and understanding recent methodological
innovation used in design doctorates in order to inform postgraduate training provision.
Presented in Experiential Knowledge Conference, London, UK.
Yee, J. S. R. (2010). Methodological innovation in practice-based design doctorates. Journal of
Research Practice, 6(2), Article M15. Retrieved from [Link]
article/view/196/193
Yee, J. S. R., & Bremner, C. (2011). Methodological bricolage – What does it tell us about design?
Presented in Doctoral Education in Design Conference, China, Hong Kong.