Content uploaded by Blair Kuys
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Blair Kuys on Feb 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Research-led practice in design research used to best
demonstrate design theories
Dr Blair Kuys, Swinburne University of Technology, Faculty of Health, Arts and Design.
School of Design. PO Box 218, Hawthorn. VIC, Australia 3122. bkuys@swin.edu.au
Dr Christine Thong, Swinburne University of Technology, Faculty of Health, Arts and
Design. School of Design. Melbourne, Australia.
Nathan Kotlarewski, Swinburne University of Technology, Faculty of Health, Arts and
Design. School of Design. Melbourne, Australia.
Professor Scott Thompson-Whiteside, Swinburne University of Technology, Faculty of
Health, Arts and Design. School of Design. Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
There is contention in the design research community surrounding the legitimacy of
industrial design practice used in design research in academia. This study claims that
research-led practice in design research within the context of universities through
industry-sponsored projects is deserving of scholarly recognition. It can be argued that
research-led practice in design research provides a platform for demonstrating the
applicability of design theories in practice. Design practice is inspired and directed by
research where concepts generated through industrial design practice provide evidence
that research-led industrial design practice has the ability to generate a new body of
knowledge. It is the research that informs decisions concerning the design process; and
by default informing practice of ‘research-led industrial design practice’. To substantiate
this, two research-led industrial design practice case studies from Swinburne University of
Technology, Melbourne, Australia are highlighted to show how design theories are used in
practice to benefit industries separate to academic environments.
Keywords
Academic research; Case studies; Industrial design; Industry; Research-led practice;
Introduction
Summarised by the International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID, 2003,
as cited in Yang, You & Chen, 2005), industrial design education programs should
educate competence in; generic attributes such as problem solving, communication skills
and remain adaptable to social changes; specific industrial design skills and knowledge
including design thinking, the design process, design methodologies, manufacturing
processes and materials, design management, environmental awareness and prototyping
skills and; knowledge integration through design and system implementation (p. 158).
Additionally, Ho et. al. (1997, as cited in Yang, You & Chen, 2005) divides industrial
design practice into four stages: planning, designing, prototyping and engineering (p.
159). While these examples are of industrial design education and competency, they
relate to learning practice, which is useful to determine the skills and knowledge acquired
to conduct research-led practice. As emphasised by Koskinen, Zimmerman, Binder,
Redstrom and Wensveen (2011) “design practice provides methods” (p. 23) and in
particular when designing with specific materials — as demonstrated in the two case
studies described in this paper — research methods such as prototyping or general
experiments with the material is a valuable way of gaining knowledge and research data
associated with a specific design and user testing.
The activity of developing commercial products through industrial design practice has
been around for centuries, emerging from the industrial revolution. The ability to
categorise this ‘activity’ as design research and generate research funding to a university
is relatively new. The 1990’s and 2000’s saw the growth of ‘generative’ research methods
that put design practice at the core of the research process (Koskinen et al., 2011, p. 23).
However, these methods did not always translate into a commercially viable product
outcome. Dorst (2008) argues that design research should refocus its attention and enrich
academic design research by working on a deep and systematic understanding of the
‘design object’, the ‘designer’ and the ‘design context’. This statement is used to legitimise
the intentions of this study by promoting the designer, the design context and most
importantly the physical manifestations of research-led practice in scholarly design
research, with a direct focus on a new contribution to knowledge that is accessible to
industry.
From an academic standpoint and as research active members of staff within higher
education in industrial design, it serves as a base platform to do both – develop
commercial products while satisfying research obligations of a university. This is done to
some degree through academic peer-reviewed papers where teaching pedagogy is
written in the form of scholarly articles, hence trying to maximise the time efficiencies one
has by fulfilling two obligations – learning and teaching combined with research output.
Typically these two activities are done through academic peer-reviewed papers and
through the teaching programs where students and staff engage with industry on new
product development. However, the nature of these activities means there is often a
disconnection between ‘academic research’ and the development of commercial products.
In a sense there is a disconnection between teaching and research. Sometimes this
disconnection between teaching and research might be bridged with scholarly
contributions or articles in teaching. Design research through practice forms a bridge
between the academic community and industry, which can sometimes be distorted
through a lack of understanding by both parties, or a lack of willingness to work cohesively
together. To link industrial design research to industry, Melles and Kuys (2010) states “the
status of industrial design with respect to other professions and disciplines in the industry
and manufacturing process remains but has been somewhat modified by the development
of an academic research culture” (p. 5228). The work highlighted in both case studies
represented in this paper gives greater insight into successful means to link scholarly
design research with industry while ensuring research targets are met within a university
environment.
‘Research’ is contextualised by what the government (and therefore universities)
recognise as research. For the 2012 Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA)
submission, research is defined as “the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of
existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts,
methodologies and understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous
research to the extent that it is new and creative (ERA 2012 submission guidelines, p. 12).
This also includes ‘non-traditional research outputs.’ These include “original created
works” which “must have been made available publicly” (p. 44). This includes design work
described as “realised, constructed, fabricated or unrealised building or design projects.
Unrealised projects must have an output that provides evidence of the research involved”
(p. 46). This paper provides knowledge on research-led practice in design research with
case studies showing “realised” research output used to synthesize a new contribution to
knowledge through industrial design practice.
Constructive design research
“Researchers make prototypes, products, and models to codify their own understanding of
a particular situation and to provide a concrete framing of the problem and a description of
a proposed, preferred state… Designers focus on the creation of artefacts through a
process of disciplined imagination, because artefacts they make both reveal and become
embodiments of possible futures… Design researchers can explore new materials and
actively participate in intentionally constructing the future, in the form of disciplined
imagination, instead of limiting their research to an analysis of the present and the past”
(Zimmerman & Forlizzi, 2008, as cited in Koskinen, et al., 2011, p. 5).
These definitions identified by Koskinen, et. al. (2011) presents a distinct contrast
between researchers, designers and design researchers. The term “constructive design
research” is used by Koskinen et al. (2011, p. 5) as a new name to “research through
design” because it creates a new beginning, clarifies older names given to design practice
as research and promotes construction as an essential tool used in this kind of research.
The definition given to constructive design research “refers to design research in which
construction — be it product, system, space, or media — takes centre place and becomes
the key means in constructing knowledge” (Koskinen, et al., 2011, p. 5). Therefore,
products that push the boundaries of new materials or manufacturing techniques are often
dissected and disassembled to purposely create new knowledge.
“One of the deep problems in design research is the failure to engage in grounded theory,
developing theory out of practice. Instead, many designers confuse practice with
research. Rather than developing theory from practice through articulation and inductive
inquiry, some designers mistakenly argue that practice is research” (Friedman 2008, p.
154).
Friedman’s claim indeed identifies a common misunderstanding between industry practice
and research-led practice in academia. Friedman’s (2008) argument continues by
introducing tacit knowledge and highlighting another misconception that “the notion that
tacit knowledge and design knowledge are identical as sources of theory development is
linked with the idea that practice is a research method” (p. 155). In keeping with
Friedman’s perspective, tacit and design knowledge are separate entities. Tacit
knowledge is knowledge known by practitioners from experience. Design knowledge
however, is knowledge attained from experimenting and practicing design. This claim is
further clarified when Friedman (2008) notes “the fact that reflective practice itself rests on
explicit knowledge rather than on tacit knowledge” (p. 155). Again in this context, practice
is used to investigate and discover explicit knowledge as opposed to tacit knowledge
known by professionals. “While we learn the art and craft of research by practicing
research, we do not undertake research simply by practicing the art or craft to which the
research field is linked” (Friedman, 2008, p. 156). This claim is imperative to
understanding that a designer cannot practice design and therefore, claim this practice is
research. However, unless the design practice is substantiated in a way that is recognised
as scholarly research by defining what the design questions and intent are, and the result
is a contribution to new knowledge, the act of design practice is simply design practice not
design research.
By identifying Friedman’s (2008) concern about design researchers failing to engage with
grounded theory, the case studies used in this study adhere to Frayling’s (1993)
theoretical design research model of research “into”, “through” and “for” design (p. 8).
Research into design is an exploration of existing knowledge from literature and historical
evidence of design solutions. Research through design is the act of design practice to
explore design constraints and considerations towards designing new innovative products
and applications and research for design is the development of a design artefact that is a
refinement of initial design concepts generated through design that embeds a new
contribution to knowledge.
The development of an artefact is an important element to industrial design research-led
practice. Further criticism is given to this research contribution as it is commonly argued
that the researcher receives credit for the artefact in substitution for the theory produced.
Biggs (2002) however, refers to artefacts as embodied knowledge (p. 5) of what has been
found through research and further states “neither artefacts alone nor words/texts alone
would be sufficient” (p. 6). In respect to making claim that the artefact is a substitute for
written text, it must be noted that researched literature has emphasised and informed the
development of a design artefact. The design process is another contribution to new
knowledge as it depicts the process of practice and presents it in an accredited academic
representation (Biggs, 2002, p. 2).
Case Studies
In order to qualify this study Frayling’s (1993) design research theory is used to
disseminate the following case studies conducted through research-led practice for design
research. The two case studies shown conform to similar industry-linked activities with
vastly different outcomes. It is the authors’ anticipation that these case studies provide an
insight into how industrial design practice from an academic context can better work with
industry to look deeper into research issues that a design consultancy does not have the
time or money to pursue in research and development. It is important to note that the
research completed within the context of the university environment is not to compete with
product development companies. Research within the university looks at ‘design
knowledge’ with the purpose of problem finding, rather than problem solving. This creates
a level of curiosity with a direct purpose to identify new design opportunities, which
companies can certainly do, but may not have the time or resources to dedicate. It must
also be noted that while design research-led practice in academia has the intention to
contribute a new body of knowledge to society, design practice in industry is conducted to
generate contemporary and future product design solutions for consumer markets.
The case studies presented in this study were conducted for industry in an academic
context. The purpose of presenting these case studies is to highlight the use of grounded
theory to generate a new body of knowledge through industrial design research-led
practice in academia for industry.
Case Study 1: Blair Kuys
New product design and commercialisation
This case study highlights methods of engagement between researchers within academia
and industry, showing the level of detail required to advance a project past the conceptual
stage and emphasises the design process undertaken for this project. This is done to
communicate how a traditional industrial design activity of this nature can disseminate
research-led practice that is recognised by the university and government as research.
This industry linked research-led practice was initiated by the observation of a Small to
Medium Enterprise (SME) that invested heavily in capital equipment that was currently
underutilised. This observation led to a search on how research-led practice could link
with traditional theoretical research that would be recognised by the university. From this,
Enterprise Connect1 was cited as the potential avenue to pursuing this venture. Enterprise
Connect provided the company with funding for 50 per cent of salary costs (to a maximum
of $AUD50,000) for a one-year placement.
The aim is to:
• Help break down the cultural divide between business and the research sector,
• Speed up the distribution of knowledge and expertise, and
• Accelerate the adoption of new ideas and technologies.
After this contract was organised between both parties work commenced to create new
products for the company involved, which enabled this company to substantially expand
the range of products currently produced. These new products complimented the
manufacturing capabilities that already existed and improved their capacity utilisation.
From this, a connection was made to the buying group for one of Australia’s largest
hardware companies and concepts were presented to gauge interest. This was positively
received and gave a better understanding of price sensitivities, new product needs and
their customer’s aspirations. This references a design method showing the importance of
high-quality visuals in presenting ideas to a client by providing greater importance in the
front-end of design activity to help ‘sell’ an idea (Kuys, Thong & Melles, 2010).
This formed the next phase moving from initial concepts to product refinement,
prototyping and ultimately production. Without understanding the interest levels from the
buying group for these particular products, the project would not advance, as there is no
point investing heavily in new product developments that don’t have a market.
In a study from Gemser and Leenders (2001), it was found that the extent to which firms
integrate industrial design in new product development projects has a significant and
positive influence on company performance, in particular when the strategy of investing in
industrial design is relatively new for the industry involved. This was the premise behind
this entire project, as the manufacturing company involved had never engaged with
industrial design before. Results of this particular case study reconfirm the positive
influence industrial design can contribute to company performance.
The first stage of the design process for this case study was initiated by research into
design as highlighted in Frayling’s (1993) design research model. The primary method
used in this case study was market analysis. The initial primary target market was
identified as the DIY homeowner. This was determined, as an identified gap was
established for affordable quality products with an emphasis on aesthetics and
functionality for the domestic garden. Current products on the market are commonly
cheap imports or high-end products that lack DIY qualities. The market segment in which
this case study was positioned is the Australian hardware market, identified as having
considerable growth over the last decade and is now generally accepted to include home
improvement, home leisure and building products. The market is currently estimated to
generate sales of approximately $AUD19 billion per annum (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2013).
1 Enterprise Connect is an Australian Government initiative in the Department of Industry,
Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education that offers comprehensive advice and
support to eligible Australian small and medium-sized enterprises to help them transform and reach
their full potential.
Market analysis (research into design)
This initial research led to the identification of three product categories that fit within the
manufacturing capabilities of the company involved. These three categories are
represented as follows:
Creeping plant panels – Existing products in this category have minimal design input
and lack DIY qualities as seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Examples of current products used for creeping plants.
Privacy panels – Existing products in this category have minimal design and made from
cheap materials with a poor service life as seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Examples of current products used for privacy screens.
Feature light panels – Existing products in this category have good design resolution but
lack DIY elements and are usually very expensive. A majority of these products are sold
as ‘one-offs’ and in most parts specified by architects or landscape designers. Examples
are seen in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Examples of current products used for
feature lighting.
Figures 1 to 3 are examples of research into design to identify existing product designs
and historical evidence of design solutions. After the product categories were defined, this
project followed the process of typical product development (research through design),
while at all stages of conceptual design, the target market and manufacturing capabilities
were considered. As defined by Ulrich and Eppinger (2008) a process is a sequence of
steps that transforms a set of inputs into a set of outputs. It must be noted however — like
many product development previously — the progression of this complex sequence of
steps is not linear, as areas within the product development process cross-lapped and
were resolved in a circular fashion. However, the following shows the evolution of this
project (presented visually) from initial concept development as research through design
to the final production and retail of the product (research for design). All of these stages
are identified by many (Roozenburg et. al., 1995, Dorst et. al., 2001, Gemser et. al., 2001
and Ulrich et. al., 2008), as key stages in the successful development of a commercial
product. The following visual evolution of this case study also follows the four stages of
the design process as highlighted by Ho et. al. (1997) earlier in this paper.
Concept development (research through design)
Figure 4. Examples of initial sketching used to advance the design outcome.
Concept proposal/selection
Figure 5. Examples of presentation panels used to communicate the product concepts.
Concept refinement/detail design
Figure 6. Refinement using 3D CAD software and hand sketching helped better link the
product to the intended market and to the manufacturing capabilities.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
Figure 7. FEA used to simulate different forces applied to the product. This is a valuable
stage in the design process to further refine the product outcome before investing in
production.
Prototyping (research for design)
Figure 8. Prototyping was completed on various designs using different materials and
thicknesses to find the optimum product outcome. It must be noted that prototyping
occurred on five separate occasions — all with minor iterations — until final manufacturing
took place. In respect to Frayling’s (1993) design research model this stage of the
theoretical model demonstrates the research into and through design as a design artefact.
The knowledge attained from the design process is embedded into a final artefact where
audiences can view the product outcome and understand the design research conducted
to produce the final design solution.
Testing in context
Figure 9. An example of prototyped products in context. This was used to better
understand to issues associated with DIY installation and longevity of products in its
intended environment.
Manufacturing
Figure 10. The final products being
manufactured.
Retail/marketing
Figure 11. Virtual rendering of packaged
product.
Figure 13. Virtual rendering of Privacy Panels.
This project followed various design methods to successfully achieve the projects
intentions – that is to diversify the product range by this particular manufacturer by using
the existing capital equipment in place. From an industrial design perspective, this is a
useful example of linking research-led practice with industry to create commercially viable
outcomes. The estimated value this project brings to the manufacturing company involved
is $AUD1.3 million based on 15,000 products selling of each design per year. This in turn
is estimated at creating profit revenue to the retailer of $AUD2.1 million in the first year of
sales.
The success of this case study can be summarised by Hertenstein et. al. (2005) who
states; “Industrial design is one of the several key areas critical to new product
development, together with research and development, marketing, manufacturing and
purchasing, among others… Researchers in fields like marketing such as Dahl et al.
(1999) and Srinivasan et al. (1997) have acknowledged the importance of the role that
Industrial Designers play in producing products that are successful in the marketplace”
(Hertenstein et al., 2005, p. 4).
Case Study 2: Christine Thong
Changing behaviour through design: door handle design
This project also supports the validity of research-led practice to be a scholarly activity
that contributes a new body of knowledge to society that can lead to benefits for industries
in the private sector. Metro Trains Pty Ltd, is a private company servicing Melbourne’s
Figure 12. Virtual rendering of
Creeping Plant Panels.
Figure 14. Virtual rendering of
Feature Light Panels.
public train system. They have engaged with Swinburne University of Technology to
conduct industrial design research as an Australian National Competitive Grant, Category
3: Industry research income.
The purpose of this project was to conduct user-analysis research to inform the re-design
of handles featured on the Comeng style train saloons. Even though the current handle
design works extremely well, the very fact it allows the general public to easily grip the
handles in many different ways to gain leverage to open the doors is what enables the
general public to pry the doors open when they should not. This is a common occurrence,
with many successful attempts leading to serious injuries and in one circumstance, death.
The bulbous shape of the protruding door handle was designed to allow for those with
reduced wrist and hand strength to grip onto the doors, but the protrusion also allows for
bags and clothing to become entangled in a way that people can be dragged along by the
train. Driver vision of people trying to open train doors from the outside as trains are taking
off can also be impaired with the shape of train lines curving slightly as they depart from
the station, therefore it can easily go unnoticed if someone is caught on a door handle.
One solution considered by Metro Trains was to introduce a sensor system that would
alert the driver if the doors were not closed properly, however this system is already in
place and ineffective because of the placement on the drivers ‘dash’ board. The red light
indicator hidden from sight when in the driving position and the noise indicator ineffective
with train acoustics. To re-design the system and install this in Comeng style trains would
cost a few million Australian dollars to implement, which was not deemed economically
viable given these trains were scheduled to be retired in five years time. It also would not
do anything about altering the behaviour of people trying to open doors when the train is
departing from the platform.
Another solution to the issue considered was to change the door system to be automated
push button entry, however this would again cost a few million Australian dollars to
implement and not provide economic viability.
Therefore Metro Trains determined that the project was required to deliver a low-tech,
cost effective solution that could minimise dangers and unsafe behaviours of people trying
to open train doors when they should not. Given the parameters identified by Metro
(research into design – history proves that there are safety issues with the current handle
design), research through design explores if the re-design of static door handles based on
user-analysis research can deliver a low cost solution that increases safety and minimises
the ability of people to engage in dangerous behaviour. The design challenge is finding a
balance of a door that is extremely difficult to open while under pressure to stay closed
(when the train is moving) but easy to open when the doors are not under pressure (when
the train is stationary at the platform). The scope of the current project was to take the
concept to proof of concept prototyping stage, where-by the prototype could be used for
user-testing, and it was identified that all methods for opening doors could not be
mitigated through the project. For example, if a person manages to catch the doorframe
while it was still open, a different handle would not affect this behaviour.
User-analysis research was conducted using a range of non-invasive techniques,
preferred by Metro Trains, to triangulate findings. The methods were:
• Observing people embarking and disembarking from Comeng trains on three
different platforms during peak and non-peak periods over two-weeks, using Metro
Trains video footage,
• Informal interviews with relevant Metro Trains staff,
• Review of reported incidences for twelve months prior,
• Artefact analysis including measurement of forces required in practice to open
doors and experimentation with different techniques for opening the door.
Identifying the problem (research into design)
User analysis identified that techniques for opening doors when a train is moving and the
doors are under pressure to stay closed are extremely varied for both inside and outside
of the train. However, there were two techniques that were repeatedly identified:
• Foot push assist for the interior of the train (see Figure 15).
• Full handgrip from the exterior of the train (see Figure 16).
Figure 15. Foot push assist.
Figure 16. Various grips for the handle, including multiple full handgrips, used on both the
interior and exterior of trains.
Through the findings of the user-analysis research, the objective of design work was
further refined through better understanding the techniques used to open doors. To
minimise unsafe behaviours, the design should limit any leverage gained from protrusion
necessary in the foot push technique in Figure 15, and the ability to gain full hand grips.
This form of research into design identifies design problems with existing door handles.
Concept development and prototyping (research through design)
A range of solutions were ideated, considered and developed through prototyping
iterations and consultation with the industry partner Metro Trains.
Figure 17. Computer visualisation of design concept.
Figure 18. Top and side profiles comparing a door handle design concept to the old
Comeng door handle design.
Figure 19. Predictive modelling to simulate forces of 500N, repeatedly applied to simulate
use of the door handle over a period of 10 years, with a safety factor of 1.18 integrated.
Design outcome (research for design)
The key features of this design — identifying how the design has met the project
requirements — is summarised as follows:
• Form: lessened protrusion and no sharp edges or details for any clothing or carried
items to become entangled (see Figure 18).
• Slide grip: similar to a sliding door, can pull with fingers or push with palm, 12
degree angle to allow for a palm to more comfortably press makes it harder to
engage foot assist. Index finger is able to apply 40–60N of force.
• Manufacturing efficiency: same handle design for inside and outside the train
saloon, suitable for die-casting required for high volume production.
• Assembly efficiency: same mounting assembly as existing handle, with only two
screw points to minimise labour and resources. This was predictively modelled to
simulate use over a 10-year period, for which it performed.
The estimated cost of implementing the new door handle design is anticipated to be under
$AUD400,000, which is at least one-quarter the cost of other automated solutions. The
project to date indicates it will be able to successfully provide an economically viable, low-
tech solution required by industry partner Metro Trains to improve the safety of users. The
project has delivered proof of concept prototyping (at the time of writing) – the next stage
is to conduct user-testing and mechanical-testing for one last iteration of refinement
before production of the door handles and trial installation on Comeng train saloons.
The artefact itself synthesizes research, through industrial designs ability to integrate a
balance of resource constraints, ideas and user-needs into a form that can be
manufactured, produced and ultimately used for the benefit of society. Through
application, the knowledge embodied in the artefact is disseminated in the real world.
Conclusion
Often published literature in design research explores theoretical content that has minimal
impact on society and real-world application. This study aims to empower industrial design
research-led practice in academia, grounded by design research theories by
demonstrating how it can be used as a tool to generate a new body of knowledge to
benefit industry, while rewarding the university through grant funding and the development
of closer relationships with industry partners.
Researchers who “engage in doing design work… directly impact practice while
advancing theory that will be of use to others” (Barab & Squire, 2004, p. 8). In the context
of this study the design process will impact practice, through which the findings are
grounded by theories that can be useful to others. Industrial design research-led practice
is beneficial to industry-linked projects by developing appropriate artefacts used to
generate a new body of knowledge through scholarly recognised design research.
Results developed through practice identify all stages in a design process to inform others
on the requirements to best demonstrate design theories in practical outcomes.
Tacit knowledge as an exclusive knowledge known by specific professions (in this context,
industrial design) is identified by Rust (2004) as a way that designers who research to
inform practice can generate new knowledge and ideas through design artefacts (p. 84).
These artefacts are a form of communicating a designer’s tacit knowledge as new
knowledge to other professions through a range of different ways such as product and
user interaction or simply by observation. In addition, other professions can therefore,
relate to the artefact and further evaluate and develop the new knowledge as potential
future research. In regards to the two case studies presented in this paper, tacit
knowledge and design knowledge attained from research and practice will assist in
developing an artefact that is appropriate to a research topic, demonstrates the design
process, gives credit to scholarly industrial design research-led practice and presents the
overall project journey so other professions can understand the new knowledge
demonstrated. The designed artefacts in both cases act as an exemplar product where
the application and new knowledge gained can be transferred into other products of
similar nature.
Although some question the value of practice in design research (Durling 2002, p. 79–85),
prototyping — a typical form of design practice — in the design research process has
significance for knowledge creation in creative arts and industries (Mäkelä 2007, p. 157–
163). In this study, the artefact or project, reflection and practice plays a role as the
material resolution of practical “applied” problems with more general theoretical or
methodological consequences (Pedgley and Wormald 2007). The issues of knowledge
and making in design research have particular relevance to industrial design (Kuys, 2010,
p. 61).
The legitimacy of research-led practice in design research as an academic and research
intense field cannot be developed alone through theoretical papers in the literature.
Rather, research-led practice in design research must prove its value in academia and
industry as offered by the two case studies shown. These cases highlight the practicality
of design research which helps bridge the gap between industry and universities.
Essentially, this approach must be formally recognised and valued by two different entities
with unique cultures – universities and industry. Industry want value-added outcomes,
universities want peer-recognised knowledge disseminated through books, papers and
conferences. Governments want both but in the main do not have sufficient funding
mechanisms or incentives to bring the two together.
References
Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design Journal, 2(11).
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2013). 8501.0 – Retail Trade, Australia, Sep 2013.
Hardware, building and garden supplies retailing (4231).
Barab, S. & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1-14.
Becher, T. & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes & Territories. 2nd Edition. SRHE &
Open University Press, Buckingham: UK.
Biggs, M. (2002). The role of the artefact in art and design research. International Journal
of Design Sciences and Technology, 10(2), 19-24.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. London, UK: Springer.
Dooley, L. & Kirk, D. (2007). University-industry collaboration: Grafting the entrepreneurial
paradigm onto academic structures. European Journal of Innovation Management, 10(3),
316-332.
Dorst, K. (2008). Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies 29,
Elsevier, 4–11.
Durling, D. (2002). Discourses on research and the PhD in design. Quality Assurance in
Education, 10(2), 79–85.
ERA 2012 submission guidelines. Excellence for Research in Australia (2012). Australian
Government. Australian Research Council. ISBN 978-0-9807997-3-6,
www.arc.gov.au/pdf/era12/ERA2012_SubmissionGuidelines.pdf .
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design: Royal College of Art London.
Friedman, K. (2008). Research into, by and for design. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 7(2),
153-160. doi: 10.1386/jvap.7.2.153_1
Gemser, G. & Leenders, M. A. A. M. (2001). How integrating industrial design in the
product development process impacts on company performance. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 18(1), 28-38. doi: 10.1111/1540-5885.1810028
Hertenstein, J. H., Platt, M. B. & Veryzer, R. W. (2005). The Impact of Industrial Design
Effectiveness on Corporate Financial Performance. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 22(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1111/j.0737-6782.2005.00100.x
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Resdström, J. & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design
Research Through Practice from the lab, field and showroom. Waltham, MA: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Kuys, B. (2010). Science and design: surface modification for timber window frames.
Swinburne University of Technology. Research Office.
Kuys, B., Thong, C. & Melles, G. (2010). First impressions count: the importance of high-
quality visuals in the Product Design Engineering discipline. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Design Education (ConnectED 2010), Sydney, New South
Wales, Australia, 28 June - 01 July 2010
Laurel, B. (2003). Design research: Methods and perspectives. The MIT Press.
Mäkelä, M. (2007). Knowing Through Making: The Role of the Artefact in Practice-led
Research. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 20(3), 157-163.
Melles, G. & Kuys, B. (2010). Legitimating industrial design as an academic discipline in
the context of an Australian Cooperative Centre. Procedia Social and Behavioural
Sciences 2, Elsevier. 2:5228-5232.
Pedgley, O. & Wormald, P. (2007). Integration of Design Projects within a Ph.D.
Design Issues, 23(3), 70-85.
Rust, C. (2004). Design Enquiry: Tacit Knowledge and Invention in Science. Design
Issues, 20(4), 76-85. doi: 10.1162/0747936042311959
Yang, M.-Y., You, M. & Chen, F.-C. (2005). Competencies and qualifications for industrial
design jobs: implications for design practice, education, and student career guidance.
Design Studies, 26(2), 155-189. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.003.
