Same But Different: A framework for understanding conceptions of research in communication design practice and academia

Abstract

Situation: There has been a growing emphasis on the importance of collaboration between the design academy and design practice, as well as research engagement by design practitioners in recent years. However, there is a lack of consensus about what constitutes research to support and inform these activities, particularly within communication design contexts. Aim: This paper explores conceptions of research held within academia and practice in the communication design field in Australia, and aims to propose a speculative framework for understanding different conceptions of research that can be applied to enhance collaboration between the two sectors and engagement by practitioners. Background: First, the background of this issue is summarized with a description of the growing value of research engagement and research collaboration, both in broad terms and specifically within the Australian communication design field. Literature review: Second, the literature review discusses how research has been defined in the past including in general academic publications, literature from the design discipline, and mass-market media. An overview of past relevant studies that have explored conceptions of research by design practitioners is also presented. The Australian Study: Following the literature review, key findings are presented from a study of how research is characterized in the Australian communication design field. Data collected via questionnaires and focus groups are reported, and differences and similarities between practitioners and academics' characterizations of research are discussed and compared with criteria for research found within the literature. Notable findings include that academics and practitioners characterized research similarly in some ways, yet differently in relation to underlying purpose and expectations for systematicity and empirical evidence. Discussion: Finally, a speculative framework for understanding the differences between design practitioner and academics' conceptualizations is presented including a proposal for how these conceptualizations may be managed during collaboration. Implications and recommendations for design academics and practitioners are outlined. Barriers and opportunities for collaboration are discussed in the interests of fostering long-term benefits and impact. Conclusion: Recognizing that design practitioners and academics are likely to hold differing conceptions of research, particularly with respect to systematicity, appropriate types of data and expected outcomes, equips designers and researchers to enter collaborations with a greater awareness of aspects of the project that may require clarification, negotiation, and confirmation.