An overview of research methods in visual communication design education

References

• Allison, B. (1992). Allison research index of art & design. Leicester: Leicester Expertise.
   Google Scholar
• Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design, Interdisciplinary Journal of Design, 1(2), 6–13.
   Google Scholar
• Baek, E.-O., Cagiltay, K., Boling, E., & Frick, T. (2008). User-centered design and development. In J. M.Spector, M. D.Merrill, J. J.van Merrienboer & M. F.Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 659–670). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Banks, M. (1995). Visual research methods. Social Research Update 11. Retrieved from http://www.sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU11/SRU11.html.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, A. (2006). Design studies: Theory and research in graphic design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. (2012). From blueprint to genetic code: The merits of an evolutionary approach to design. Rotman Magazine, Spring, 16–21.
   Google Scholar
• Camino, M. (2010). An examination of the journal used as a vehicle to bring about a synthesis between theory and practice in art and design higher education. Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, 3(3), 317–340.
   Google Scholar
• Charles, L., & Ward, N. (2007). Generating change through research: Action research and its implications. Retrieved from http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cre/publish/discussionpapers/pdfs/dp10.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Checkland, P. B. (1991). From framework through experience to learning: The essential nature of action research. In H. E.Nissen, H. K.Klein & R.Hirschheim (Eds.), Information systems research: Contemporary approaches and emergent traditions (pp. 397–403). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Coumans, A. (2011). Muscular design. PreDesign Forum. Retrieved from http://www.predesignforum.net/view.php/page/musculardesign.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 5–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durling, D. (2002). Discourses on research and the PhD in design. Quality Assurance in Education, 10(2), 79–85.
   Google Scholar
• Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Findeli, A. (2008). Searching for design research questions: Some conceptual clarifications. In Questions & hypotheses (pp. 286–302). Berlin: DRN Learning Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Findeli, A., Brouillet, D., Martin, S., Moineau, C., & Tarrago, C. (2008, May). Research through design and transdisciplinarity: A tentative contribution to the methodology of design research. Presented at the Swiss Design Network Symposium, Berne, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Franz, J. (2000). An interpretative-contextual framework for research in and through design. Proceedings doctoral education in design: Foundations for the future. La Clusaz: OUTePrints. Retrieved from http://www.eprints.qut.edu.au/7804/1/7804.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: Criteria, approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24, 507–522.
   Google Scholar
• Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29.
   Google Scholar
• Glanville, R. (2003). An irregular dodekahedron and a lemon yellow Citroen. In L.van Schaik (Ed.), The practice of practice (pp. 258–265). Melbourne: RMIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glanville, R., & van Schaik, L. (2003). Designing reflections: Reflections on design. In D.Durling & S.Kazuo, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd doctoral education in design conference (pp. 35–42). Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C., & Malins, J. (1993). Research procedures/methodology for artists & designers. In W.Callaway, K.Crouan, & L.Davis (Eds.), Principles and definitions: Five papers by the European postgraduate art & design group. Winchester: Winchester School of Art & Design.
   Google Scholar
• Haron, H., & Alias, R. A. (2005). Conceptualization of tacit knowledge dimension. Proceedings of the postgraduate annual research seminar. Johor Bahru: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Retrieved from http://eprints.utm.my/3334/1/Rose_Alinda_-_Conceptualization_of_Tacit_Knowledge_Dimension.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social science research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Heller, S. (1998). The education of a graphic designer. New York: Allworth Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hockey, J., & Allen-Collinson, J. (2000). The supervision of practice-based research degrees in art and design. Journal of Art & Design Education, 19(3), 345–355.
   Google Scholar
• James, D. D. (2003). A working model for postgraduate practice based research across the creative arts. The third doctoral education in design conference (DED3) proceedings. Tsukuba: University of Tsukuba. Retrieved from http://www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/ded3/d_final_paper/d_02.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jonas, W., & Chow, R. (2008). Far beyond dualisms in methodology – An integrative design research methodology medium. Paper presented at DRS Conference Undisciplined!, Sheffield, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, J. C. (1980). Design methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Kanu, Y. (2009). Curriculum as cultural practice: Postcolonial imaginations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy, M. (1997). Connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 4–12.
   Google Scholar
• Khoury, M. P., & Khoury, T. E. (2009). Writing & research for graphic design within undergraduate studies. In D.Durling, T.Poldma & A.Valtonen, (Eds.), International association of societies of design research: Proceedings of the 3rd IASDR world conference on design research (pp. 839–846). Seoul: Society of Design Science.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, B. R. (1990). How designers think. London: Butterworth Architecture.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. K., Foo, S., & Goh, D. H. (2006). On the concept and types of knowledge. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 5(2), 151–163.
   Google Scholar
• Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice: In search of meaning in learning about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 33–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marshall, T., & Newton, S. (2000). Scholarly design as a paradigm for practice-based research. In Working papers in art and design, 1. Retrieved from http://www.sitem.herts.ac.uk/artdes_research/papers/wpades/vol1/marshall2.html.
   Google Scholar
• McCoy, K. (1998). Education in an adolescent profession. In S.Heller (Ed.), The education of a graphic designer (pp. 3–12). New York: Allworth Press.
   Google Scholar
• McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.
   Google Scholar
• Meggs, P. B. (2005). History of graphic design (4th ed.) Revised by Alston W. Purvis. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Newbury, D. (1995). A journey in research, from research assistant to Doctor of Philosophy. Journal of Graduate Education, 2, 53–59.
   Google Scholar
• Newbury, D. (1996a). The research training needs of postgraduates in art and design: A practical response. Paper presented at the international conference on art and design research, No Guru, No Method? Helsinki, Finland.
   Google Scholar
• Newbury, D. (1996b). Knowledge and research in art and design. Design Studies, 17(2), 215–219.
   Google Scholar
• Newbury, D. (1996c). A journey in research, from research assistant to Doctor of Philosophy. Journal of Graduate Education, 2(2), 53–59.
   Google Scholar
• Nickols, F. W. (2000). The knowledge in knowledge management. In J. W.Cortada & J. A.Woods (Eds.), The knowledge management yearbook 2000–2001 (pp. 12–21). Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1986). User centered system design: New perspectives on human–computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Papastergiardis, N. (2002). Melancholy moments and the art of research. Campus Review3 p
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, M. (1997). Tacit knowledge. In L.Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in organizations. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Rust, C. (2004). Design enquiry: Tacit knowledge and invention in science. Design Issues, 20(4), 76–85.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saikaly, F. (2003). Design re-thinking: Some issues about doctoral programmes in design. Paper presented at the Techné: Design Wisdom: 5th European Academy of Design Conference, Barcelona.
   Google Scholar
• Saikaly, F. (2005). Approaches to design research: towards the designerly way. Paper presented at the 6th international conference of the European academy of design, Design System Evolution. Bremen, Germany. Retrieved from http://ead.verhaag.net/fullpapers/ead06_id187_2.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design, 3, 131–147.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professionsJossey-Bass Higher Education Series. San Francisco; London: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. A. (1996). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory design: Principles and practices. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Sevaldson, B. (2000). The integrated conglomerate approach: A suggestion for a generic model of design research. In D.Durling & K.Friedman (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference doctoral education in design: Foundations for the future (pp. 163–170). Staffordshire: Staffordshire University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sheth, S. (2000). Refocusing praxis: The problem for design research. In S.Pizzocaro, A.Arruda & D.De Moraes (Eds.), Design plus research, Milano, 18–12 May 2000 (pp. 366–369). Milano, Italy: the Ph.D. Programme in industrial design, Politecnico di Milano.
   Google Scholar
• Siu, K. W. M. (2007). Balance in research and practice: The reform of research studies in industrial and product design. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 11(1), 15–28.
   Google Scholar
• Soares, L., & Pombo, F. (2010). Interpretation as a design method. In D.Durling (Ed.), Design & complexity. International conference of design research society (DRS), 7–8 July (pp. 1–8). Montreal: Université de Montreal.
   Google Scholar
• Strand, D. (1998). Research in the creative arts. Canberra: DETYA.
   Google Scholar
• Strouse, R., & Arnold, J. (2009). Design research in undergraduate design education: Relevance and implementation. Proceedings of the 3rd IASDR world conference on design research, International association of societies of design research. Seoul: Korean Society of Design Science. Retrieved from http://www.iasdr2009.org/ap/Papers/Orally%20Presented%20Papers/Design%20Education/Design%20Research%20in%20Undergraduate%20Design%20Education%20-%20Relevance%20and%20Implementation.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Swanson, G. (1998). Liberal arts and graphic design: Six cautionary questions. In S.Heller (Ed.), The education of a graphic designer (pp. 23–29). New York: Allworth Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swann, C. (2002). Action research and the practice of design. Design Issues, 18(2), 49–61.
   Google Scholar
• Tornello, M. (2003). Practice and education: Benchmarking user-centered research in industrial design. Arizona: Arizona State University.
   Google Scholar
• van Schaik, L. (2000). Interstitial modernism. Melbourne: RMIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Schaik, L. (2003). The practice of practice: Research in the medium of design. Melbourne: RMIT University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yammiyavar, P. (2000). Is industrial design research really different from other research? In S.Pizzocaro, A.Arruda & D.De Moraes (Eds.), Design plus research, Milano, 18–12 May 2000 (pp. 251–257). Milano, Italy: the Ph.D. Programme in Industrial Design, Politecnico di Milano.
   Google Scholar
• Yee, J. (2007). Connecting practice to research (and back to practice): Making the leap from design practice to design research. Journal of Design Principles and Practices, 1(1), 81–90.
   Google Scholar
• Yee, J. (2009). Capturing tacit knowledge: Documenting and understanding recent methodological innovation used in design doctorates in order to inform postgraduate training provision. Presented in Experiential Knowledge Conference, London, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Yee, J. S. R. (2010). Methodological innovation in practice-based design doctorates. Journal of Research Practice, 6(2), Article M15. Retrieved from http://www.jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/196/193.
   Google Scholar
• Yee, J. S. R., & Bremner, C. (2011). Methodological bricolage – What does it tell us about design? Presented in Doctoral Education in Design Conference, China, Hong Kong.
   Google Scholar