EDITOR
Hugh Dubberly
hugh@dubberly.com
An Evolving Map of Design
Practice and Design Research
Liz Sanders
MakeTools | liz@maketools.com
Design research is in a state of flux. The design
research landscape has been the focus of a tremendous amount of exploration and growth over
the past five to 10 years. It is currently a jumble of
approaches that, while competing as well as complementary, nonetheless share a common goal: to
drive, inspire, and inform the design development
process.
Conflict and confusion within the design
research space are evident in the turf battles
between researchers and designers. Online communities reveal the philosophical differences
between the applied psychologists and the applied
anthropologists, as well as the general discontent
at the borders between disciplines. At the same
time, collaboration is evident in the sharing of
ideas, tools, methods, and resources in online
design research communities. We can also see
an increase in the number and quality of global
design research events and a growing emphasis on
collaborative projects between industry and the
universities, particularly in Europe.
like to stay put and others like to travel. So maps
are good for layering complexity and for revealing
change as it occurs.
In making the map, I found that I needed to
name the dimensions of the design research space
in a way that would help bring clarity and light
to the landscape. Once this happened, everything
else fell quickly into place.
How Is the Map Organized?
The design research map is defined and described
by two intersecting dimensions: One is defined by
approach and the other is defined by mind-set.
Approaches to design research have come from
a research-led perspective (shown at the bottom
of the map) and from a design-led perspective
(shown at the top of the map). The research-led
perspective has the longest history and has been
driven by applied psychologists, anthropologists,
sociologists, and engineers. The design-led perspective, on the other hand, has come into view
more recently. (See Figure 1.)
There are two opposing mind-sets evident in
the practice of design research today. The left side
of the map describes a culture characterized by
an expert mind-set. Design researchers here are
involved with designing for people. These design
researchers consider themselves to be the experts,
and they see and refer to people as “subjects,”
“users,” “consumers,” etc. The right side of the map
describes a culture characterized by a participatory mind-set. Design researchers on this side
design with people. They see the people as the
true experts in domains of experience such as
living, learning, working, etc. Design researchers
who have a participatory mind-set value people
as co-creators in the design process. It is difficult
for many people to move from the left to the right
side of the map (or vice versa), as this shift entails
a significant cultural change. (See Figure 2.)
The largest and most developed of the areas on
[ 1] Sanders, E. B.-N.
“Design research
in 2006.” Design
Research Quarterly 1,
no. 1, Design Research
Society, September
2006.
Why Make a Map?
When asked to write a paper about the state of
design research, I found that I had to make a map
so that I could see what I was writing about [ 1].
People who know me are aware that orienting and
finding my way around physical space is not one
of my strengths. Making a map is a way to hold a
domain still for long enough to be able to see the
relationships between the various approaches,
methods, and tools. Maps are good for visualizing
relationships.
Maps can be useful for showing complexity and
change. For example, the underlying landscape of
the map may be relatively permanent, changing
only as major forces affect it. But the tools and
methods shift and change somewhat like trends.
And the people who inhabit the landscape may
come and go. As in the real world, some people
