Article2017

Evidence-Based Design and Research-Informed Design: What’s the Difference? Conceptual Definitions and Comparative Analysis

53 citations0/0 files storedHERD Health Environments Research & Design Journal

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Healthcare Facilities Design and Sustainability Health Sciences Research and Education Health Policy Implementation Science

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This article provides critical examination and comparison of the conceptual meaning and underlying assumptions of the concepts evidence-based design (EBD) and research-informed design (RID) in order to facilitate practical use and theoretical development. BACKGROUND: In recent years, EBD has experienced broad adoption, yet it has been simultaneously critiqued for rigidity and misapplication. Many practitioners are gravitating to the term RID to describe their method of integrating knowledge into the design process. However, the term RID lacks a clear definition and the blurring of terms has the potential to weaken advances made integrating research into practice. METHOD: Concept analysis methods from Walker and Avant were used to define the concepts for comparison. RESULTS: Conceptual definitions, process descriptions, examples (i.e., model cases), and methods of evaluation are offered for EBD and RID. Although EBD and RID share similarities in meaning, the two terms are distinct. When comparing evidence based (EB) and research informed, EB is a broad base of information types (evidence) that are narrowly applied (based), while the latter references a narrow slice of information (research) that is broadly applied (informed) to create an end product of design. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the confusion between the use of the concepts EBD and RID arises out of differing perspectives between the way practitioners and academics understand the underlying terms. The authors hope this article serves to generate thoughtful dialogue, which is essential to the development of a discipline, and look forward to the contribution of the readership.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 53 citations exist upstream.

References

2010A review of critical appraisal tools show they lack rigor: Alternative tool structure is proposed 1953Adjustment to Physical Handicap and Illness: A Survey of The Social Psychology of Physique and Disability 2009Evidence-Based Healthcare Design 2008Evidence-Based Design: What is It?

Cited by

2020An integral view of innovation in hospital building design: understanding the context of the research/practice gap 2022The nature of innovation in hospital building design: a mixed grounded theory study 2018Translating Evidence into Practice 2020Application of Theory in Studies of Healthcare Built Environment Research 2021The role of evidence-based design in informing health-care architects 2021Evidence-Based Design in Architectural Education: Designing the First Maggie’s Centre in Israel 2022The Challenges and Advantages of Implementing a Lean-Led Design Approach 2021Exploring Informed–Design Services during the Project–Defining Phases in Commercial Interior Design

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.