Last week we had a post about an article in World Health Design that took a critical look at Evidence-based Design. I had been unable to reach the author, Dr. Jacqueline Vischer before putting up that post. Now she has responded to a series of questions.
Note: in this interview, EBD: Evidence-based Design while RBD: Research-based Design and POE refers to Post Occupancy Evaluation
I'm not really clear on how EDB and RBD design are different. They are both involved with using scientific method's to test a hypothesis about a design process that might measurably improve patient outcome aren't they? How do hey differ? Cyndi McCullough wrote that "EDB is rooted more in healthcare provider observation and anecdotal evidence", while " RBD is more rigorous and is based on studies using comparative research instruments..." Why is that true?
I do not distinguish between Research-Based design and Evidence-Based design, it seems to me that the terms could be interchangeable. EBD is gaining currency as a defined and specific approach whereby social science measurement tools are applied in a field situation to generate ‘proof’ that one design action or another is likely to be a more effective design solution, in terms if adding value to the designed outcome. Value that is added is usually in terms of beneficial effects on users, but users are a large and diverse group (staff, visitors, cleaners, the public …) and not limited to health-care environments. I think the issue facing EBD – as I have written – is what constitutes ‘evidence’, as most data analysis and testing is based on the statistical probability of one or another outcome being the result of something other than chance. The designer, as the participant who transposes the ‘evidence’ into a concrete act, still has the job of interpreting the results.
Research-based design seems to me at this point to be a slightly vaguer term, in that ‘research’ can include just about any activity that the designer opts to engage in as part of their problem analysis. My students use ‘research’ to describe looking up design solutions in magazines, studying the designs of published architects, reading articles and books related to the topic and or to the design process, as well as going into the field and questioning (systematically or otherwise) stakeholders. In reference to your question, I do not use either EBD or RBD to indicate a ‘design process’ – that for me is another term with a whole other meaning, or set of meanings. I also do not consider that either term is limited to health care environments, although this is where EBD is gaining currency at the present time.
Are you saying that EBD is fast and practical and that RBD isn't? If so, why?
No I do not think ‘fast’ and ‘practical’ characterize either EBD or RBD. I wrote that the temptation to do research ‘fast’ can lead to dangerous waters both in terms of validity, that is, what exactly we think we are measuring, as well as reliability – that is, the effectiveness of the testing or measuring we decide to use. For me the appeal of EBD is the logical and practical link into design decision-making, such that spaces designed for specific uses are based on what is known about user behaviour rather than on the designer’s speculation or limited personal experience. We used to think we could fix this problem with POE but we were not always effective. I think EBD is a better way of improving the situation but realistically it is not possible to perform research projects on every aspect of a design project. And anyway, why would one want to? Part of what the client is paying the designer for is his or her creativity, imagination and intuitive problem-solving skills.
What are the the "ethical implications" you are referring to when discussing the dark side of EDB? Are you are saying that EBD is more prone to rush research which is inherently a time consuming process?
Yes in part. I am also saying that there is a risk that a designer not trained in research can set up a bogus project in the name of EBD and then claim scientific validity for his or her design decisions. Most clients are not researchers either so are not in a position to distinguish between a piece of solid research and one that has taken short-cuts and led to biased results. You know the old saying: “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics”. And we definitely live in a culture that values quantitative reasoning, regardless of what it is based on!
You mention the value of Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE). Can't Post Occupancy Evaluations be used in both EBD and RBD?
I would say that RBD, as an umbrella concept, can include POE as one way of doing research for design.
In my article I distinguish between POE and EBD, but I could well see how an EBD research project might be incorporated into a broad-based POE.
You did not mention the fact that EBD is in it's infancy and the actual amount of hard data to guide designers of hospitals is remarkably small. Isn't that a serious concern for EBD and RBD?
The data that guides doctors in their medical decisions is also often ‘remarkably small’. There is no objective standard of when we have enough data to make the ‘right’ decision. In that way, designers are no different from doctors. I stress the importance of the designer’s experience, intuition, sensitivity and principles - as well as research results - in solving design problems. We do not want to find ourselves supporting a ‘scientific’ approach to design at the expense of all those other important factors; we may end up with a lot of bad designs!
Lastly where does the title of your article "The Methods of Our Madness" come from?
From the Editor, I’m afraid!
Jacqueline Visher, PhD is Professor of design, University of Montréal.
Recent Comments