Making the Case for Practice-Based Research and the Imperative Role of Design Practitioners

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to justify the need for evidence-based design (EBD) in a research-based architecture and design practice. This article examines the current state of practice-based research (PBR), supports the need for EBD, illustrates PBR methods that can be applied to design work, and explores how findings can be used as a decision-making tool during design and as a validation tool during postoccupancy. As a result, design professions' body of knowledge will advance and practitioners will be better informed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the society. Furthermore, characteristics of Friedman's progressive research program are used as a framework to examine the current state of PBR in design practice. A modified EBD approach is proposed and showcased with a case study of a renovated inpatient unit. The modified approach demonstrates how a highly integrated project team, especially the role of design practitioners, contributed to the success of utilizing baseline findings and evidence in decision-making throughout the design process. Lastly, recommendations and resources for learning research concepts are provided for practitioners. It is the role of practitioners to pave the way for the next generation of design professionals, as the request and expectation for research become more prevalent in design practice.

The role of evidence-based design in informing health-care architects

“…Currently, architects have the chance to perform certain research-based processes. They also have many resources and can reach research experts (Freihoefer and Zborowsky, 2017). The architects must understand that research itself does not lead to a decision.…”

“…Use of EBD regularly in conjunction with the traditional design phases by design practitioners will facilitate the implementation of the EBD process. This integration requires the inclusion of research and EBD in basic baccalaureate programs for design students, as well as teaching EBD as a crucial element of the design process in architectural and interior design departments, both nationally and internationally (Freihoefer and Zborowsky, 2017; Stichler, 2016a, 2014; Martin, 2009). Health-care architects need skilled people to conduct and interpret the EBD research.…”

“…Health-care architects need skilled people to conduct and interpret the EBD research. However, hiring a skilled person may impact the firm’s culture of identifying the significance in assessing design decisions for their effectiveness when a project is finished and occupied (Freihoefer and Zborowsky, 2017; Stichler, 2016a; Pangrazio, 2007).…”

Sources and flow of healthcare built environment design evidence

“…An alternative approach is to involve design teams in the research that underpins EBD (2). Whilst some researchers do not agree that the design practitioners' research is credible enough to constitute evidence for EBD (Stankos and Schwarz, 2007), considering the unique and complex nature of healthcare built environment designs, many EBD researchers actually conclude that that best evidence is that generated by practice (Hamilton and Watkins, 2009) or from practice-based research (Becker and Carthey, 2007;Freihoefer and Zborowsky, 2017). Zborowsky and Bunker-Hellmich (2010) claim that alongside their colleagues in academia, practice-based researchers (design practitioners) can participate in expanding the existing EBD knowledge base.…”

“…The main streams of investigation relate to improving the direct intake of peer-reviewed published evidence (e.g. Martin and Guerin, 2007;Stichler, 2010;Pati, 2011), promoting designer-involved research at project or organisational levels to generate evidence internally (Becker and Carthey, 2007;Freihoefer and Zborowsky, 2017) and enhancing evidence-based healthcare design standards and guidance (Mills et al, 2015). Yet these approaches do not allow for the consideration of EBD as part of a holistic process undertaken in a lived reality.…”