Faculty Perceptions Regarding Research: Are ... - Wiley Online Library

Faculty Perceptions Regarding Research: Are We on the Right Track? Joan I. Dickinson, Ph.D., Radford University, Lori Anthony, M.S., Chatham University, and John P. Marsden, Ph.D., Mount Mercy College

ABSTRACT

Although research has been a topic of discussion for the past few decades within the academy, how interior design educators view research has not been examined. The purpose of this investigation was to survey interior design faculty who are members of the Interior Design Educators Council (IDEC) to determine (1) their definitions of research and programming, (2) their perceived value of research in interior design practice and education, (3) their perceptions of who should conduct research, (4) the degree to which they are engaging in research, and (5) how they are incorporating research into the classroom. Sixty-five faculty members responded to the online survey that consisted of three open-ended questions, 20 questions using a Likert Scale, and questions documenting demographic information. The results indicated that the faculty who responded did not have a working definition of research or programming, and a number of faculty members did not clearly understand the difference between the two. Although 27% of the sample responded that research involved discovery or moved the field forward, another 20% defined research solely as information gathering. The educators in this study valued research, and 80% believed that research findings provide useful information to the profession. Yet, many of the subjects in this study were unclear on whether interior design educators, practitioners, or specialists in other fields should be conducting interior design research. The majority of subjects valued what research could bring to the student during the design process, yet there was hesitation on whether undergraduate students should be taking research-related coursework.

In the field of interior design, numerous educators (e.g., Becker, 1999; Fisher, 2004; Fowles, 1992; Guerin, 1992; Guerin & Thompson, 2004; Hamilton, 2004; Kieran, 2007; Kroelinger, 2007; LaGro, 1999) have written about the importance of research. More specifically, there has been a call to implement design solutions that are based on research findings (Guerin, 2007; Guerin & Thompson, 2004; Kroelinger, 2007; Weigand & Harwood, 2007) and for ‘‘educators to teach future practitioners the value of research. . .’’ (Guerin & Thompson, 2004, p. 1). As suggested by Kroelinger, ‘‘Advocating a sound research basis for design is essential. Our students need it and their future clients expect it (for accountability and assessment of design results). . . . These issues are equally important to undergraduate students at an entry level in their academic program’’ (p. 16).

Introduction Interior design has become an increasingly complex field where designers are asked to make difficult decisions regarding the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of a space (Guerin & Thompson, 2004; Thompson, 2007). As a result, the term evidencebased design has permeated the profession. Evidencebased design stems from evidence-based medicine that is dedicated to administering the best care to patients through the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current evidence in making decisions (Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [CEBM], 2007; Hamilton, 2004). Although design decision-making can be informed by different types of knowledge, ranging from soft sources, such as manufacturer product searches and best practice design guidebooks, to peerreviewed journal articles, evidence-based design is most closely associated with research studies.

Journal of Interior Design

Yet, no one has investigated how interior design faculty view research or whether or not they are

1

© Copyright 2009, Interior Design Educators Council, Journal of Interior Design 35(1)

FACULTY PERCEPTIONS REGARDING RESEARCH DICKINSON ET AL.

The point of research is to discover new information, or to verify existing information in new ways that extend or expand knowledge in a field, even if this creation of knowledge occurs in small increments.

incorporating research into the curriculum. The purpose of this study was to examine interior design faculty attitudes toward research. Specifically, faculty were surveyed to compare (1) their definitions of research and programming, (2) their perceived value of research in interior design practice and education, (3) their perceptions of who should conduct research, (4) the degree to which they are engaging in research, and (5) how they are incorporating research into the classroom.

6. ‘‘Research is systematic inquiry directed toward the creation of knowledge’’ (Groat & Wang, 2002, p. 7). 7. ‘‘Research is a systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information (data) in order to. . . communicate what we discover to the larger scientific community’’ (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005, p. 2). 8. ‘‘Research, according to researchers, is a systematic discovery of knowledge or a systematic inquiry’’ (Guerin & Dohr, 2007, p. 4). 9. ‘‘Research . . . can be described as the generation of new knowledge which has application for a wide general domain. . .’’ (Wang, 2007, p. 34). (Definitions cited from Informing Design, Dickinson & Marsden, 2009).

Literature Review Definition of Research In order to examine faculty attitudes toward research, it is important to clarify the definition of research. Below are several definitions pulled from various sources: 1. ‘‘Research is careful inquiry or examination to discover new information or relationships and to expand and to verify existing knowledge’’ (Rummel, 1964, p. 2). 2. ‘‘Research is the systematic, controlled, empirical and critical investigation of hypothetical propositions about presumed relations among natural phenomena’’ (Kerlinger, 1970, p. 8). 3. ‘‘Research is defined as a systematic way of asking questions, or a careful inquiry or examination to discover new information or relationships and to expand and to verify existing knowledge’’ (Touliatos & Compton, 1988, p. 7). 4. ‘‘Research is a careful, systematic, patient study and investigation in some field of knowledge, undertaken to discover or establish facts or principles’’ (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1996, p. 9; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2006; Guralnik, 1978, p. 1208). 5. ‘‘Research is careful, patient, and methodical inquiry done according to certain rules’’ (Sommer & Sommer, 2002, p. 1).


First, the definitions cited above range from 1964 to 2007 and have not changed over the course of 40 years. Second, the definitions are cited from various authors with differing backgrounds. To illustrate, Touliatos and Compton (1988) write from a home economics perspective, Sommer and Sommer (2002) are educators in psychology, Leedy and Ormrod (2005) and Fraenkel and Wallen (1996, 2006) are in the field of education, whereas Groat and Wang (2002) and Guerin and Dohr (2007) represent the design fields in architecture and interior design, respectively. Despite the different areas of expertise, these definitions have much in common. Most state that research is a systematic, patient process. More importantly, the majority of the definitions claim that research leads to discovery. The point of research is to discover new information, or to verify existing information in new ways that extend or expand knowledge in a field, even if this creation of knowledge occurs in small increments (Dickinson & Marsden, 2009; Groat & Wang, 2002; Guerin & Thompson, 2004; Marsden, 2005; Touliatos & Compton, 1988). Many of the definitions cited above also describe research as expanding the body of knowledge in a

2

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


. . .there still seems to be confusion over the true definition of research and how valuable some interior design educators and practitioners find research to the design process.

given field. Blackmer (2005) suggests that research creates factual information, theory, and in some cases cause and effect relationships, which lead to knowledge. As a field matures, its knowledge base expands. Marshall-Baker (2005) argues that knowledge is expansive and evolves over time and suggests that interior design shares knowledge with a number of different disciplines, such as art, architecture, and social science. Like social science, interior design should not only value what research brings to the design process, but should also recognize that research findings are one facet that contributes to the body of knowledge in a given field (Marshall-Baker, 2005). Friedman (2003) states that research is the ‘‘methodological search for knowledge’’ (p. 512) and that research is one source of knowledge that designers require (Friedman, 2001, p. 47). And recently, Pable (2009) argued that knowledge for interior design is both subjective and objective and claimed that interior designers use both ‘‘subjective artistic expression and . . . scientific principles in their decision-making’’ (p. vi). Although all of these authors state that professional experience such as that gained through practice leads to knowledge, interpretation and understanding of this knowledge emerges from critical inquiry that is a hallmark of research (Friedman, 2001).

illustrate that research is more than information gathering that is completed for a design project or programming document. Even though these definitions help to clarify the meaning of research, there still seems to be confusion over the true definition of research and how valuable some interior design educators and practitioners find research to the design process. This confusion over research and its relationship to professional practice is not surprising. Interior design is a relatively new field of knowledge, particularly when we look at the induction of interior design programs at the university level (Friedman, 2001). As stated by Friedman (2001), ‘‘The difficulty of fitting research into the field of design is not rooted in the nature of design. Neither is it rooted in the nature of design knowledge. The great difficulty arises from a field of practice with a huge population of practitioners who were trained in the old vocational and trade traditions of design’’ (p. 45).

Definition of Programming As defined by Duerk (1993), ‘‘programming is the gathering, organizing, analyzing, interpreting, and presenting of information that is relevant to a design project’’ (p. 9). According to Eakins (2005), ‘‘programming is an intensive and comprehensive study of the client’s needs . . . and is intended to generate requirements a design will meet’’ (p. 63). And as stated by White (1972), programming is a written, organized document that provides background information that is relevant to the specific project. The best way to distinguish programming from research is as follows: research is the systematic pursuit of new knowledge, whereas programming is the systematic search for information (Pena, Parshall, & Kelly, 1987). Research expands the body of knowledge, whereas programming typically does not. Research leads to discovery; programming is project specific or site specific and typically does not move the field forward (Dickinson & Marsden, 2009).

One of the definitions above states that research is empirical. Empirical implies evidence that is observable by the senses (Walliman, 2006). With empirical research, the emphasis is on scientific knowledge that involves a testable hypothesis that leads to findings that expand the knowledge base in one’s field. An important part of the scientific method (i.e., defining the problems or questions, conducting the literature review, stating the hypotheses, collecting data, analyzing data, and interpreting data in relationship to the hypotheses) states that all evidence must be empirical (Touliatos & Compton, 1988; Walliman, 2006). What is important to note is that the definitions above imply research that is empirical in nature. Most of the definitions suggest that research involves a series of steps such as those stated in the scientific method and that the end product of research is evidence that is tangible. Second, the definitions above clearly


To explain, the programming document is characteristically written for a specific client and usually cannot

3

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


. . .one of the more disturbing trends to emerge from this research study was the fact that the majority of undergraduate students had little interest in taking a course on research and that a small number indicated never enrolling in a class or studio that covered research in any form. be generalized to other clients. If we were completing a programming document for the Westfield’s Memory Care Unit located in Roanoke, VA, we would need to understand this particular client’s values, goals, adjacencies, space and storage requirements, codes, site context, staffing, and security issues to name a few. These client needs would be defined through programming and would be specific to the Westfield’s Memory Care Unit.

journals, and unpublished sources is sufficient to be considered research,’’ 42% of the faculty agreed with this statement. Undergraduate students have also been surveyed to determine their attitudes toward research. Two studies are worth citing. In a pilot study conducted by Dickinson, Marsden, and Read (2007), 89 interior design undergraduate students were surveyed from three research-based universities. These students were either in their third or fourth year of study to ensure that the subjects had ample time for research exposure. The results indicated that, overall, students valued research for the profession regardless of their college or university affiliation (e.g., when asked, ‘‘I believe that research findings can provide useful information to Interior Design practitioners,’’ 73% (n = 65) of the students from the three universities strongly agreed). However, similar to the results in the Chenoweth and Chidister (1983) study, their definitions of research were pragmatic in nature, and they often regarded research as the gathering of information rather than the generation of new knowledge, demonstrating that the link between research and discovery was not apparent. The students were also unclear on who should be conducting interior design research (e.g., when asked, ‘‘Research related to Interior Design should be conducted primarily by Interior Design educators,’’ 42 students disagreed, 20 students agreed, and 18 students were unsure). Clearly, the students at these three universities did not understand the role of a faculty member as part of a research university (Dickinson et al., 2007).

Previous Studies Although the literature review for this article did not reveal any studies focusing on interior design faculty attitudes toward research, attitudes have been investigated from the perspective of landscape architecture faculty and undergraduate students in interior design and other disciplines. In 1983, Chenoweth and Chidister distributed a questionnaire to 255 landscape architecture faculty members and found that attitude and educational training influenced engagement in research. Favorable perceptions toward research and research-oriented training led to faculty members who were more likely to apply for grants, write and read journal articles, and spend time on research activities. Many of the faculty members in this study, however, did not have extensive research background, and the majority had not taken any courses in statistics and research methods. Chenoweth and Chidister also investigated faculty perceptions on incorporating research into undergraduate and graduate coursework. Even though the landscape architecture faculty indicated that research education was important, they did not think that research should be emphasized relative to design, graphics, construction, or fine arts.

Probably one of the more disturbing trends to emerge from this research study was the fact that the majority of undergraduate students had little interest in taking a course on research and that a small number (n = 12) indicated never enrolling in a class or studio that covered research in any form. This is particularly troublesome because the students surveyed in the Dickinson et al. (2007) study were students attending research universities.

In this same study, faculty definitions of research were measured, and the investigators found that landscape architects ‘‘do not share a working definition of research’’ (p. 104). Approximately 50% of the sample felt that research encompassed information gathering. For example, when faculty members were asked, ‘‘The activity of summarizing and making conclusions about information gathered from books, magazines,


The findings from the Dickinson et al. (2007) study would suggest that students are not receiving

4

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


In the design fields, this skill-set often results in a studio-based curriculum where the emphasis is on design, creativity, and imaginative thinking with little time for the connection between research and design to be explored.

exposure to the importance of research during the design process at the undergraduate level. Similarly, undergraduate students enrolled in both education and nursing programs also view research with little enthusiasm (Leedy & Ormrod, 2005). Ax and Kincade (2001) interviewed undergraduate nursing students to explore their perceptions regarding the usefulness, implementation, and personal interest in nursing research. Similar to the other studies cited, the students did not understand the ‘‘true’’ definition of research and likened the research process to a literature review or information gathering. And how research can benefit the nursing profession was not fully understood, as verified by the following quote: ‘‘While the importance of research training has been acknowledged by most professional bodies and in the various specialties, many qualified nurses and nursing students appear to disagree with the idea’’ (p. 161).

Design Educators Council (IDEC) members (n=565). An email reminder was sent to all potential participants. Sixty-five usable responses were received for a 12% return rate.

Instrument The online questionnaire was developed by the principal investigators and was based on existing scales from several studies (Chenoweth & Chidister, 1983; Dickson & White, 1993; Dickinson et al., 2007). The questionnaire consisted of three sections. In the first part, faculty members were asked to define research and programming and the difference between the two in an open-ended format (i.e., three open-ended questions). Twenty questions measured attitudes toward research in practice and education in a second section. Responses were structured using a Likert Scale where 1 equaled strongly agree and 5 equaled strongly disagree (Table 1). The last part of the questionnaire requested demographics along with background information on faculty education and experience in an open-ended format.

The parallels between nursing and interior design are interesting to note. Both professions are based on gaining practical skills before entering the workforce and both rely on a particular skill-set in order to gain employment. In the design fields, this skill-set often results in a studio-based curriculum where the emphasis is on design, creativity, and imaginative thinking with little time for the connection between research and design to be explored. Because it could certainly be argued that faculty shape student perceptions, the question becomes, do faculty hold these same pragmatic views?

Analysis The questionnaire was uploaded to an online survey software program called SelectSurvey.net. The only identifier to each completed questionnaire was an IP address that was not traceable to the respondent. Upon receipt, the survey software numbered completed questionnaires sequentially. These assigned numbers served to identify the completed questionnaires.

Methods

The responses for the open-ended questions and demographic questions were content analyzed. Responses to the open-ended questions were recorded and similar phrases or key words that respondents used to define research, programming, and the difference between the two were underlined. These common phrases were categorized into like responses, and the frequencies were tallied.

Purpose and Sample For this investigation, interior design educators were targeted to determine (1) their definitions of research and programming, (2) their perceived value of research in interior design practice and education, (3) their perceptions of who should conduct research, (4) the degree to which they are engaging in research, and (5) how they are incorporating research into the classroom. Using a survey methodology an online questionnaire was distributed through the Interior


Responses to closed-ended questions (Table 1) were analyzed using descriptive statistics in the form of

5

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


Table 1. Survey instrument with frequencies for each response category for the closed-ended questions

Question

SA

A

U

D

SD

1. I believe that research findings can provide useful information to interior design practitioners. 2. The results of research are used extensively in interior design practice. 3. The results of research should be used extensively in interior design practice. 4. In my opinion, the results of research are of little help to solving design problems in interior design practice. 5. I think the research findings published in the Journal of Interior Design are relevant to interior design practice. 6. An interior designer’s ability to understand research is a big help in gaining employment in private practice. 7. An interior designer’s ability to conduct research is a big help in gaining employment in private practice. 8. Research related to interior design should be conducted primarily by interior design practitioners. 9. Research related to interior design should be conducted primarily by interior design educators. 10. Research related to interior design should be conducted primarily by specialists in other fields. 11. The research studies my students have read for my interior design studio projects have provided them with useful information. 12. The research studies my students have read for my interior design studio projects have been easy to understand. 13. The research studies my students have read for my interior design studio projects have been easy to find. 14. I think research information is very useful for justifying design solutions. 15. I think interior design undergraduate students should know how to use research results in design studio projects. 16. I think a course should be taught to interior design undergraduate students on how to evaluate the research findings of others. 17. I think a course should be taught to interior design undergraduate students on how to conduct research about an interior design issue. 18. I think interior design graduate students should know how to use research results in design studio projects. 19. I think a course should be taught to interior design graduate students on how to evaluate the research findings of others. 20. I think a course should be taught to interior design graduate students on how to conduct research about an interior design issue.

52

13

0

0

0

6 29 2

14 33 3

15 1 2

26 2 38

4 0 20

10

25

16

10

4

5

20

13

24

3

1

17

18

21

8

1

11

10

35

8

4

22

15

22

2

1

7

11

34

12

22

34

5

4

0

3

16

13

30

3

3

21

12

28

1

25 32

32 28

5 3

2 1

1 1

20

21

14

8

1

16

21

17

10

1

49

15

1

0

0

51

10

3

1

0

53

10

2

0

0

SA = strongly agree; U = unsure; SD = strongly disagree; A = agree; D = disagree.

frequencies and percentages, and differences between groups were analyzed using independent t-tests. A significance level of .05 was used. Responses to each demographic question were listed and grouped into similar categories. Nominal values were assigned to each category for use in statistical analysis and frequency tabulation.


Results Sample Characteristics Sixty-six faculty members responded to the online survey with a total of 65 usable responses. Of the 65, 85% were female and 15% were male. The majority of the respondents were Caucasian (93%), whereas

6

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


term programming. Participants were also asked to describe the difference between the two. Examples of research definitions included:

Table 2. Sample background experiences

Participants background

Years

Years practiced

0–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 More than 20 Years taught 0–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 More than 20 Programs in which faculty teach Bachelor’s program only Master’s and bachelor’s programs Doctoral, master’s, and bachelor’s programs Percentage of time allocated to research

Percentage 17% 22% 14% 13% 33% 14% 26% 18% 15% 27%

1. ‘‘Systematic process that leads to discovery of new information that advances or moves the field forward.’’ 2. ‘‘Research is an activity undertaken which collects/analyzes information in order to contribute new information to the existing body of knowledge.’’ 3. ‘‘Scholarly activity (1) is an original investigation, (2) adds to the body of knowledge of the discipline, (3) is peer reviewed, and (4) is retrievable.’’ 4. ‘‘Gathering information to solve a problem’’ or ‘‘gathering information.’’ 5. ‘‘Searching for new information or new solutions.’’ 6. ‘‘The gathering of information/data through scientific methods.’’ 7. ‘‘Finding the facts that are needed to start on a design. This could be historical precedents, architectural precedents, code review, client likes.’’

62% 28% 10% 1–10% (11%) 11–20% (18%) 21–30% (13%) 31–40% (18%) 41–50% (4%) Over 50% (1%) None (35%)

In examining these definitions, we found that 27% of the respondents mentioned discovery or creation of new knowledge and another 27% noted systematic process or inquiry. Twenty percent defined research as information gathering. Other recurring phrases included investigation (12%), empirical investigation (7%), and creation or testing of theory (7%). Common phrases used to define the term programming included: identification of the problem or goals (33%), information gathering (24%), systematic process of data collection and analysis (20%), establishing user or client needs (13%), organizing information and planning (7%), and asking questions (3%).

2% were Asian, 2% were Native American, and 3% were other. Most held a Master’s degree (98%) and 34% had received the Ph.D. Sixty-three percent were between the ages of 40–59, 19% were 60–79 years old, and 18% were 20–39 years old. Table 2 provides a summary of the background experiences of the sample. As illustrated in this table, many of the faculty members who responded to the online questionnaire are seasoned educators. The majority have extensive experience in both practice and education. Interestingly enough, the amount of time that is allocated to research in their current faculty positions is low, yet 32% of the faculty members who have no research expectations are teaching in graduate programs.

In the last open-ended question, we asked participants to explain the difference between research and programming. Responses included:

Definitions of Research and Programming

1. ‘‘None.’’ 2. ‘‘Research is academic; programming is professional.’’

The first part of the online questionnaire asked faculty members to define the term research and the


7

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


. . .many of the differences between programming and research as explained by faculty members are in direct contradiction with one another. . .The variety in the responses from subjects suggests that a number of faculty do not understand the difference between interior design programming and research. 3. ‘‘Research leads to discovery; programming is project specific or site specific and typically does not move the field forward.’’ 4. ‘‘Research can relate to anything, programming relates to architectural and interior design projects.’’ 5. ‘‘Research: gathering of data; Programming: prioritizing of data.’’ 6. ‘‘Research is much broader and covers scientific work whereas programming is specific to a project.’’

subjects suggests that a number of faculty do not understand the difference between interior design programming and research.

Value of Research in Interior Design Practice Ten closed-ended questions using a Likert Scale were asked to examine faculty members’ attitudes toward research in interior design practice (Table 1). The majority of the respondents indicated that research was valuable to the profession. When asked, ‘‘I believe that research findings can provide useful information to interior design practitioners,’’ 80% strongly agreed and 20% agreed with this statement. When asked, ‘‘The results of research should be used extensively in interior design practice,’’ the majority of the sample strongly agreed (45%) or agreed (51%). In the question, ‘‘In my opinion the results of research are of little help to solving design problems in interior design practice,’’ 59% of the faculty members disagreed with this statement.

In Table 3, additional subject responses to how programming and research differ are presented. In examining this table, many of the differences between programming and research as explained by faculty members are in direct contradiction with one another. To illustrate, subject 19 states that research is broad and that programming is specific to one project; subject 23 states that research relates to a specific question; and subject 58 claims that research can relate to anything. The variety in the responses from

Although the respondents clearly valued what research could bring to practice, they were somewhat skeptical of whether the results from empirical investigations were actually used in the field. For example when asked, ‘‘The results of research are used extensively in interior design practice,’’ most respondents disagreed (9% strongly agreed, 22% agreed, 23% unsure, 40% disagreed, and 6% strongly disagreed). Subjects were also asked about the relevance of the Journal of Interior Design. When asked, ‘‘I think the research findings published in the Journal of Interior Design are relevant to interior design practice,’’ the responses were varied, with 15% strongly agreeing, 39% agreeing, 25% unsure, 15% disagreeing, and 6% strongly disagreeing. Faculty members were also questioned about the relationship between research knowledge and employment opportunities. ‘‘An interior designer’s ability to understand research is a big help in gaining employment in private practice,’’ received mixed responses (8% strongly agreed, 31% agreed, 20% were unsure, 37% disagreed, and 4% strongly disagreed). Educators who have the Ph.D. were more likely to disagree with this statement than those with the master’s degree (Table 4).

Table 3. Summary of research versus programming differences by respondents

Subject

Research

Programming

Subject #5 Subject #8

Academic Creating information to move field forward

Professional Organizing information without moving field forward Determining the problem Documenting client/user needs Relates to one project specific to a project Identifying design problems Is only part of a process Gathering information

Subject #10 Problem solving Subject #18 Defining client/user needs Subject #19 Broad Subject #23 Answering specific questions Subject #32 A whole process

Subject #37 Searching for information Subject #39 Part of programming process Subject #58 Can relate to anything Specific to design


8

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


It seems as if interior design educators are unclear on who should be conducting research. In fact, when educators were asked if interior design research should be conducted by specialists in other fields, 12% strongly agreed or agreed with this statement

Value of Research in Interior Design Education

Table 4. Means and standard deviations on research knowledge and employment opportunities

Sample

N

Faculty with Ph.D. 21 Faculty with 39 Master’s Degree

M

SD

t

df

3.43 1.03 2.60 58 2.72 2.72

The last part of the closed ended questions dealt with the value of research to interior design education (Table 1). Most faculty members seemed to value what research could bring to the student during the design process. To illustrate, when asked, ‘‘The research studies my students have read for my interior design studio projects have provided them with useful information,’’ the majority of the respondents strongly agreed or agreed (n = 56; 86%). Furthermore, when faculty members were asked, ‘‘I think interior design undergraduate students should know how to use research results in design studio projects,’’ again the majority of the faculty strongly agreed or agreed (n = 60; 92%). Faculty members also expressed the same agreement when undergraduate students were substituted with graduate students. Sixty-four (98%) faculty members strongly agreed or agreed that graduate students should know how to use research results in design studio projects.

p .012

Note: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = unsure; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree.

Who Should Be Conducting Research? Faculty members were asked four questions related to who should be conducting interior design research (Table 1). When asked, ‘‘Research related to interior design should be conducted primarily by interior design practitioners,’’ 2% strongly agreed, 17% agreed, 15% were unsure, 54% disagreed, and 12% strongly disagreed. When practitioners were replaced with educators, 6% strongly agreed, 34% agreed, 23% were unsure, 34% disagreed, and 3% strongly disagreed. It seems as if interior design educators are unclear on who should be conducting research. In fact, when educators were asked if interior design research should be conducted by specialists in other fields, 12% strongly agreed or agreed with this statement (n = 8). Interestingly enough, educators teaching in undergraduate programs only were more likely to disagree that research should be conducted by interior design educators (Table 5).

Although these results suggest that faculty see the need for research as part of the design process, there was some uncertainty with respect to research-related coursework. When asked, ‘‘I think a course should be taught to interior design undergraduate students on how to evaluate the research findings of others,’’ while the majority agreed (32%), a number of faculty members were unsure (22%). When undergraduate students were replaced with graduate students, 79% of the respondents strongly agreed that graduate students need this type of coursework. When faculty members were asked, ‘‘The research studies my students have read for my interior design studio projects have been easy for them to understand,’’ the majority of respondents disagreed with this statement (46%). If students had more coursework in research methods and terminology, then perhaps they would not have such difficulty in understanding and reading published investigations.

Table 5. Means and standard deviations on interior design educators conducting research

Sample

N

M

SD

t

df

p

Faculty who teach 38 3.21 1.02 2.18 59 .033 in undergraduate programs only Faculty who teach 23 2.65 .885 in undergraduate and graduate programs

In the last part of the questionnaire, we asked a number of open-ended demographic questions to gain a better understanding of faculty member programs and courses taught (Table 6). As seen in this table,

Note: 1 = strongly agree; 2 = agree; 3 = unsure; 4 = disagree; 5 = strongly disagree.


9

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


Even though there was disagreement over the definition of research and programming, faculty members overwhelmingly felt that research was beneficial to the field of interior design. . .

Chidister (1983) and Dickson and White (1993). Like the Chenoweth and Chidister investigation, the faculty who responded to this survey did not have a working definition of research or programming and a number of faculty members did not clearly understand the difference between the two. Although 27% of the sample responded that research involved discovery or moved the field forward (see the first three definitions), a significant number (20%) defined research as information gathering (see definitions 4 through 7). Information gathering is certainly a part of the research process, but does not encompass the entire definition (see previously cited definitions). To illustrate, searching on the Internet pertaining to some subject matter does not constitute true research. This is not to suggest that this activity is not worthwhile; rather the distinction between information gathering and research is often blurred as seen in this study, as well as the Ax and Kincade (2001) and Dickinson et al. (2007) investigations. There also seems to be confusion over the differences between programming and research. One faculty member defined research as follows: ‘‘Finding the facts that are needed to start on a design. This could be historical precedents, architectural precedents, code review, client likes.’’ This would be considered a definition for programming.

Table 6. Coursework information and faculty research loads for tenure and promotion

Classes that address research Design studio (33%) Technology (16%) Research methods (15%) Environment and behavior (7%) Thesis (7%) Theory (6%) Programming (5%) Professional practice (3%) History (3%) None (3%) Statistics (3%)

Thesis options Undergraduate thesis: yes (64%) no (36%) –Design project (60%) –Empirical study (2%) –Design project and empirical study (38%) Graduate Thesis: yes (68%) no (32%) –Design project (8%) –Empirical study (28%) –Design project and empirical study (64%)

Degree to which research and creative scholarship counts in review process Very important (n = 16) Important (n = 10) Somewhat important (n = 13) Not at all (n = 6)

Even though there was disagreement over the definition of research and programming, faculty members overwhelmingly felt that research was beneficial to the field of interior design, as 80% strongly believed that research findings can provide useful information to interior design practitioners. However, a number of subjects expressed doubt as to whether research was used in professional practice (40%) or whether research experience was helpful in gaining employment (51%). And, a number of subjects felt that the research findings in the Journal of Interior Design were irrelevant (21%). These findings are somewhat supported by Dickson and White (1993), who examined how frequently interior design practitioners researched a design problem and what kinds of sources were used. Although 34% of the practitioners researched a design problem 100% of the time, 27% indicated

research is being taught in a variety of venues ranging from coursework focused on technology to history classes. Graduate programs requiring an empirical study to satisfy a thesis requirement constitute 28% versus 2% at the undergraduate level, whereas the number of programs that combine an empirical study with a design project increases significantly, with 64% requiring it at the graduate level and 38% at the undergraduate level.

Discussion There are many similarities between this study and the studies that were published by Chenoweth and


10

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


What is disappointing is how little the profession has changed in the last 15 years. How can we possibly expect the profession to value research if this subject matter is not taught at the undergraduate level?

that they only researched a design problem 25% of the time. Additionally, we have to question whether practitioners are actually researching or whether they are gathering information. In the Dickson and White study, the majority of practitioners used soft sources of information such as product catalogs, trade magazines, and books while ‘‘researching.’’ Yet, this study was published in 1993. The current state of the field is somewhat unknown, but anecdotal information and the results from this study would suggest that while some interior designers seem to use research, others clearly do not (Fisher, 2004; LaGro, 1999). What is interesting to note is the skepticism regarding research use in professional practice considering the number of articles written on evidence-based design (Hamilton, 2004).

to research, perhaps this result is not so surprising (Table 6). The majority of faculty members responded that none of their time was allocated to research at their current institution. We also asked subjects how important research is to the review process. As seen in Table 6, research is heavily weighted during tenure and promotion. Interestingly enough, a number of faculty members who had low percentages of time allocated to research had a review process heavily weighted toward scholarship activities. For example, one subject responded that 0% of his or her time was allocated to research or creative scholarship, yet these two entities were considered extremely important during the review process. Another stated that 10% of time was allocated to scholarly activities. But with a 4/4 teaching load, there was no time left for research. As stated by this subject, ‘‘Research activity is highly valued. . . . Because ours is a teaching institution, teaching . . . is the primary focus. However, it is recognized that research enriches classroom teaching and research activities are important for success in the tenure/promotion process.’’ What is somewhat confusing is that many respondents were unsure whether interior design educators should be conducting research, while their institutions seem to be favoring scholarship activities including research as part of the tenure and promotion process.

Although the majority of interior design faculty surveyed valued what research could bring to the student during the design process, there seemed to be some hesitation as to whether undergraduate students should be taking research-related coursework. The classes that addressed research were quite varied in this sample and ranged from research methods to studio to programming to history (Table 6). In addition, the majority of students who are completing an undergraduate thesis are participating in designoriented projects (60%). Similar findings were found in the Chenoweth and Chidister (1983) study, where faculty emphasized the importance of research, but not at the expense of the design studio. As stated by Kieran (2007), ‘‘. . . we plan and plan again with little real growth in the quality and productivity of what we do either artistically or technically . . . and few schools of architecture teach research skills and fewer yet insist upon critical reflection and learning based on research findings’’ (pp. 27 and 28).

The similarities between this study and the previous investigations are alarming, and the implications have us concerned. Dickson and White (1993) noted 15 years ago that there is a lack of research use or understanding among practitioners. Yet, we still have interior design educators who fall into this same category, and this lack of understanding has influenced both student and practitioner knowledge regarding research (Dickinson et al., 2007; Dickson & White, 1993). What is disappointing is how little the profession has changed in the last 15 years. How can we possibly expect the profession to value research if this subject matter is not taught at the undergraduate level? How can we expect students to grasp the idea of evidence-based design (i.e., design decision making based on rigor/research) if they are taught

When we examined who should be conducting interior design research, we found that generally faculty members believed that specialists in other fields (71%) and interior design practitioners (66%) should not be conducting research. But, the subjects in this study were also uncertain if interior design educators should be conducting research. When examining the percentage of faculty time allocated


11

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


Based on the results from this study, some interior design faculty need to better educate themselves on the differences between research, programming, and information gathering and the value each brings to the undergraduate student—future practitioner.

that research is mere information gathering by faculty who believe this to be true? How can we expect our field to expand beyond a craft or vocation to a true profession valued by the public if we do not understand how to define the term research or understand who generates research to increase our knowledge base? As stated by Dickson and White 15 years ago, generating knowledge through research ‘‘constitutes the backbone’’ of a profession and is what separates a profession from a trade (1993, p. 4).

Weigand and Hardwood (2007) have argued eloquently for the Master’s of Interior Design (MID) as the first professional degree in interior design. Perhaps another year of study is needed so that educators have the time to incorporate research experiences or concepts of evidence-based design. But it is also important to note that this study has identified a number of problems that could make implementation of the MID as the first professional degree difficult. First, the lack of a cohesive definition of research is problematic, particularly when one of the major goals of the MID is to emphasize evidence-based design (Guerin, 2007; Kroelinger, 2007). Second, the low research expectations of many of the faculty who responded to this survey suggest that there may not be enough faculty members who have the expertise and knowledge to incorporate the MID as the first professional degree. Third, even though the faculty in this survey valued what research could bring to the design process, they were skeptical about whether research skills would be beneficial for the student during the hiring process. We would argue that, for the time being, research must be infused into the undergraduate experience so that these future practitioners can understand that design is not only an art, but is also a science that can utilize empirical evidence. If not at the undergraduate level, then the question becomes where particularly, since many practitioners do not seek advanced degrees. Based on the results from this study, some interior design faculty need to better educate themselves on the differences between research, programming, and information gathering and the value each bring to the undergraduate student–future practitioner.

In some respects, these findings are to be expected when we begin to examine the Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) standards. In Standard 2 (a), the following is stated: ‘‘The program must provide learning experiences that address client and user needs and their responses to the interior environment,’’ and in Standard 4 (d), (e), (f) the following is stated: ‘‘Student work must demonstrate programming skills including problem identification, identification of client and/or user needs, and information gathering research and analysis (Council for Interior Design Accreditation [CIDA] Accreditation Manual, 2006).’’ These two standards are geared toward programming activities where students are gathering information that is relevant to a specific project. Whether students are using empirical research studies as part of their information gathering or whether students understand the distinction between the different levels of rigor that can be used to inform design is unclear and is not a CIDA accreditation requirement for undergraduate programs. The emphasis on the project-oriented thesis at the undergraduate level, the variation in where research is taught in the undergraduate curricula, the lack of a common definition of what research is and how it differs from programming, and the studio-focused curriculum as indicated in the CIDA accreditation standards suggest that perhaps interior design education has fallen into the same trap as architecture. As noted by Weigand and Harwood (2007), ‘‘. . . some first-professional programs provide only professional training and exclude research components altogether’’ (p. 4).


Future Directions Several additional research studies may be worth investigating. First, we need to survey practicing professionals from a variety of firm types in order to determine whether practitioners understand the difference between research and programming, how practitioners are accessing research data, and whether research is incorporated during the design process. Second, we need to survey interior design educators again due to our low sample size to determine whether the findings from this study hold true in hopes of

12

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


generalizing the findings from a larger sample. Focus groups would clarify and explain the findings from this study as well as provide insight into some of the disconcerting disconnects in faculty responses. Third, we may need to revisit our survey instrument. In the first part of the questionnaire, we asked the subjects to define the term research and programming. Next, we asked subjects a series of closed-ended questions regarding their attitudes toward research in interior design practice and education (Table 1). If the subject defined research as information gathering in part one, they may have responded to the rest of the questionnaire through this lens. Last, a comparative analysis between students’, faculty, and practitioners’ understanding and use of research may bridge the apparent gap between the semantic differences of research, information gathering, and programming. This further research will identify the needs of all constituencies and should begin to align the definitions and use of research in interior design.

Duerk, D. P. (1993). Architectural programming information management for design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Eakins, P. (2005). Writing for interior design. New York: Fairchild Publications. Fisher, T. (2004). Architects behaving badly: Ignoring environmental behavior research. Harvard Design Magazine, 21, 1–3. Fowles, D. L. (1992). Interior design education in the year 2000: A challenge to change. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 17(2), 17–24. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (1996). How to design and evaluate research in education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Friedman, K. (2001). Creating design knowledge: From research into practice. In E. W. L. Norman & P. H. Roberts(Eds.) Design and technology educational research and curriculum development: The emerging international research agenda (pp. 31–70). Loughborough, UK: Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University. Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: Criteria, approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24, 507–522. Groat, L., & Wang, D. (2002). Architectural research methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

References

Guerin, D. A. (1992). Issues facing interior design education in the twenty-first century. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 17(2), 9–16.

Ax, S., & Kincade, E. (2001). Nursing students’ perceptions of research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 35(2), 161–170.

Guerin, D. A. (2007). Defining graduate education in interior design. Journal of Interior Design, 33(2), 11–14.

Becker, F. (1999, Winter). Good medicine. Perspective, 57–62. Blackmer, B. E. (2005). Knowledge on knowledge. Journal of Interior Design, 31(1), vii–xii.

Guerin, D. A., & Dohr, J. (2007). Research 101: Part 1 research-based practice. InformeDesign. Retrieved August 15, 2007, from http://www.informedesign.umn.edu.

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM). (2007). Introduction to evidence based medicine. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. Retrieved September 16, 2007, from http://www.cebm.net.

Guerin, D. A., & Thompson, J. A. (2004). Interior design education in the 21st century: An educational transformation. Journal of Interior Design, 30(1), 1–12.

Chenoweth, R., & Chidister, M. (1983). Attitudes toward research in landscape architecture: A study of the discipline. Landscape Journal, 2(2), 98–113.

Guralnik, D. B. (Ed). (1978). Webster’s new world dictionary of the American language (2nd college ed.). New York: The World Publishing Company.

Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA) Accreditation Manual. (2006). Council for Interior Design Accreditation (CIDA). Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www.accredit-id.org.

Hamilton, D. K. (2004). Four levels of evidence-based practice. The American Institute of Architects. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://www.accredit-id.org.

Dickinson, J., & Marsden, J. P. (Eds.) (2009). Informing design. New York: Fairchild Publications.

Kerlinger, F. (1970). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehort & Winston.

Dickinson, J. I., Marsden, J. P., & Read, M. A. (2007). Empirical design research: Student definitions, perceptions, and values. Journal of Interior Design, 32(2), 1–12.

Kieran, S. (2007). Research in design: Planning doing monitoring learning. Journal of Architectural Education, 61, 27–31.

Dickson, A. W., & White, A. C. (1993). Are we speaking the same language? Practitioners’ perceptions of research and the state of the profession. Journal of Interior Design, 19(1), 3–10.


Kroelinger, M. D. (2007). Defining graduate education in interior design. Journal of Interior Design, 33(2), 15–17.

13

Volume 35

Number 1

2009


LaGro, J. A. (1999). Research capacity: A matter of semantics. Landscape Journal, 18(2), 51–58.

Sommer, R., & Sommer, B. (2002). A practical guide to behavioral research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research planning and design (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Thompson, J. A. (2007). Position paper overview. Journal of Interior Design, 33(2), 1.

Marsden, J. P. (2005). Humanistic design of assisted living. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Touliatos, J., & Compton, N. H. (1988). Research methods in human ecology/home economics. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

Marshall-Baker, A. (2005). Knowledge in interior design. Journal of Interior Design, 31(1), xiii–xxi.

Walliman, N. (2006). Social research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pable, J. (2009). Interior design identity in the crossfire: A call for renewed balance in subjective and objective ways of knowing. Journal of Interior Design, 34(2), v–xx.

Wang, D. (2007). Diagramming design research. Journal of Interior Design, 33(1), 33–42.

Pena, W., Parshall, S., & Kelly, K. (1987). Problem seeking: An architectural programming primer (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: AIA Press.

Weigand, J., & Harwood, B. (2007). Defining graduate education in interior design. Journal of Interior Design, 33(2), 3–9.

Rummel, J. F. (1964). An introduction to research procedures in education (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

White, E. (1972). Introduction to architectural programming. Arizona: Architectural Media, Ltd.


14

Volume 35

Number 1

2009