Evidence-based Design Under Attack

Evidence-based Design criticized

World Health Design's premier issue (April 2008) has an article introduced by Dr. Jacqueline Vischer comparing Evidence-based Design (EBD) to Research-based Design. Since selecting art for healthcare is increasingly based on Evidence-based Design, I wanted to know more.

Dr. Vischer writes:

The dark side of EBD is that time and other practical limitations might have ethical implications, leading to a compromise of research protocol or erroneous methods of data collection and analysis.

... it is important, therefore, not to substitute it for conventional research

After reading the article I could not understand how Evidence-based Design differs from conventional research (also known as Research-based Design). Because I was unable to reach Dr. Vischer I asked an EBD researcher to comment:

Dr. Xiaobo Quan writes:

The discussion around EBD has revealed again that different people may have different definitions and opinions about the same term or concept. In my personal opinion, these are the same thing. EBD is research-based.

To read the full article click here. This will download a PDF of the April 2008 World Health Design. This article starts on page 16.

Jacqueline Visher, PhD is Professor of design, University of Montréal.

Xiaobo Quan, PhD is a researcher at the Center for Health Design

Comments

[Marc Sansom]

Dr Upali Nanda is perfectly correct in her assertions, but has missed the point concerning the premise of this style of feature.

It is not designed to be a rigorous appraisal of Evidence-based design, but simply to re-establish, using journalistic techniques, the debate on the true definition of EBD, which is a methodology that has been perverted by so many in the name of marketing.

The feature achieves its aim by exposing, as Dr Xiabo Quan recognises, that many people have different definitions or even misconceptions about what constitutes evidence-based design.

In reality, this is the unfortunate consequence of many practitioners misusing and undermining the concept, by claiming a project to be evidence-based despite a less than rigorous research methodology.

[Sara Marberry]

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that evidence-based design is a process and is about both research AND design. It includes using the best available research, putting together the right team to make decisions based on that research, and using conventional research methods to measure results. The Center for Health Design and a group of industry experts have spent the past three years defining this process, which is the basis for its Evidence-based Design Accreditation and Certification (EDAC) program. The EDAC Study Guides, which are coming out this November, will clearly define this process. In addition, several really good books on EBD have been or are about to be published by experts such as Jain Malkin, Kirk Hamilton, and Roz Cama. The field is truly growing and it is good that we are having such robust discussions!