Assessing the Applicability of Three Approaches to Design-Oriented Research


Practice-led approach
Design approaches
User experience




The three main approaches in inquisitive research design are qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods [1]. However, recent developments in the research field have resulted in multiple other approaches, borrowing ideas from a broad range of fields. One such approach is the practice-led approach. This approach involves an efficient design process, novel qualitative interviewing methods, together with data mining procedures from quantitative data collection [2]. This paper assesses the practice-led approach used in user experience (UX) design, together with three approaches: co-design, service design, and reflective practice.


Creswell JW, 2003, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2nd ed.), Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, California, 5.

Nicolini D, 2016, Knowing in Organizations: A Practice-Based Approach, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., New York.

Hendriks N, Slegers K, Duysburgh P, 2015, Codesign with People Living with Cognitive or Sensory Impairments: A Case for Method Stories and Uniqueness. CoDesign, 11(1): 70-82.

Villalba C, Jaiprakash A, Donovan J, et al., 2019, Testing Literature-Based Health Experience Insight Cards in a Healthcare Service Co-Design Workshop. CoDesign, : 1-13.

Page T, 2018, Co-Design in the Context of Design Management. i-Manager’s Journal on Management, 13(2): 1.

Bowen S, McSeveny K, Lockley E, et al., 2013, How Was It for You? Experiences of Participatory Design in the UK Health Service. CoDesign, 9(4): 230-46.

Blomkvist J, 2014, Representing Future Situations of Service: Prototyping in Service Design. Linköping University Electronic Press.

Blomkvist J, Arvola M, 2014, The 28th International BCS Human-Computer Interaction (HCI 2014) Conference, September 9-12, 2014: Pausing or Not?: Examining the Service Walkthrough Technique. British Computer Society (BCS), Southport, UK, 171-6.

Wetter-Edman K, 2010, The Concept of Value in Design Practice – An Interview Study. 2nd Nordic Conference on Service Design and Service Innovation, Linko¨ping, Sweden.

Junginger S, Sangiorgi D, 2009, Service Design and Organizational Change: Bridging the Gap Between Rigor and Relevance. International Association of Societies of Design Research, Seoul, Korea, 4339-48.

Hsu YC, Ching YH, 2013, Mobile App Design for Teaching and Learning: Educators’ Experiences in an Online Graduate Course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4): 117-39.

Pope CC, Penney D, Smith TB, 2018, Overtraining and the Complexities of Coaches’ Decision-Making: Managing Elite Athletes on the Training Cusp. Reflective Practice, 19(2): 145-66.

Greenberger SW, 2020, Creating a Guide for Reflective Practice: Applying Dewey’s Reflective Thinking to Document Faculty Scholarly Engagement. Reflective Practice, : 1-15.

Hong YC, Choi I, 2015, Assessing Reflective Thinking in Solving Design Problems: The Development of a Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4): 848-63. jet.12181

Braxton JM, Luckey W, Helland P, 2002, Institutionalizing a Broader View of Scholarship Through Boyer’s Four Domains. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 142

Hora MT, Smolarek BB, 2018, Examining Faculty Reflective Practice: A Call for Critical Awareness and Institutional Support. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(4): 553-81.