Research in interior design--what is it really?

As a practicing interior designer in graduate school I have recently stumbled upon the concept that research, as we have been taught for years, is not all that it might be cracked up to be.

We are taught in early schooling that research is merely looking up information in a book to get the facts you need to write a paper, or do another assignment. For some reason they do not bother to tell you that what you think is research is really just fact finding. True research is expanding the body of knowledge that exists. It is finding new information to be added to the astronomical pile of knowledge we as humans have discovered.

I swear this does apply to interior design...

Here's how:
We as designers are taught in a method that further reinforces fact finding to be considered as research. Until grad school I knew of no difference between the two. Now I am realizing that there is a distinct difference. Part of what influenced this blog is a great book called "Informing Design." It explicitly explains the differences between these two activities and how it applies to interior design.

Fact finding in interiors is fully necessary for any project. It includes programming with client interviews and space analysis. It also includes looking at products best suited for your design, finding in, and past designs which might be similar and successful. But research is something we are not always taught in school.

Research in interiors is the same as in any other field. It includes many things such as testing hypotheses, or analyzing past research. Emphasizing true research in this field is what might finally bring it up to being seen at the same level as any other reputable field instead of being seen as a "pretty career" or something else frivolous.

We as designers need to take on the responsibility of using true research from sites such as GoogleScholar and InformeDesign to make evidence-based design. Utilizing research that has been proven through testing is a much better way to design your project than just picking what YOU like. We are not in this field to just pick the colors we personally are most attracted to. We are in this business to do what is best for our client. By using research to design we can achieve the best outcomes for life safety, environmental psychology, quality design, and sustainability. In this aspect we are no different from others such as doctors who use research and testing to pick the best diagnosis and treatment for their patients. We should use this same mentality to pick the best design solution.

This is all not to say that we should make ugly designs. That is also part of our responsibility, and part of some of the many things that have been researched. Aesthetics should also be vitally important to any project, especially when combined with proven design information.

We as designers need to be as responsible in our approach to creating the spaces people live, work, and play in as any other field. we need to get over this "pretty" HGTV reputation we have and show what we are really out there doing.

Architectural Mecca

In today's great age of technology and design one city in the world seems to be consistently "taking the cake" in terms of adventurous and interesting design. Dubai. I envy people who live and get to visit this mecca for architectural wonders. I mean c'mon, this place is like Disneyland with extra Mickey Mouse for anyone who can appreciate creative design.

'0-14 tower' was designed by resier and umemoto and rur architecture pc along with Dubai developer, shahab lutfi. the building was designed for dubai's business bay and features 22 floors covered in a double skin facade that's outermost skin is constructed from 40c, thick perforated concrete. the one meter space between the skins creates a chimney effect, cooling the building. How sweet is this? It looks like lace or Swiss cheese as a building. It even utilizes natural cooling techniques.

I guess my whole point of this particular rant is to ask why we can't do anything this interesting and innovative in the States? Is it because we are so worried about the bottom line we cannot see how positively something other than an air conditioned box can serve as a building? Everywhere you look, giant, square, air conditioned boxes. How lovely....

I guess I'm just jealous that I have to go halfway around the world to see really interesting architecture and design like the DaVinci Rotating towers, the Dancing Towers, or the Dubai Towers.

We have the know-how and engineering capabilities here to construct buildings that would add interest, beauty, tourism, and green design into our lives. Are we just to lazy and worried about the short-term bottom line that we cannot see our future in square, boring, rat cages? Maybe it is because we lost our spirit of competition? Maybe it's just the lack of oil money? But I think we as Americans, and others across the world, should look to these magnificent structures as a challenge to better ourselves, and our ideas of what buildings should be.

Evidence-Based Design

As I've written before, Interior Design often gets confused with Interior Decorating. As a student pursuing a Master's Degree in Interior Design, I often get asked what exactly there is to study at a Master's level in ID. To a lot of people's shock I also explain that you can pursue a degree all the way up to a PhD in Interior Design just like any other reputable degree. People seem completely confused and ask what kind of "color matching" or "fabric selection" they could possibly teach at a PhD level. While I also had thoughts along the same path upon entering into the study of ID, I soon realized that there a million things to study at a higher level in this discipline.

Through a good education and much research I have come to realize that ID is a major contributor to the health, safety, and well being of people. At least when done correctly. Every day people enter into built spaces to live, work, and play. These spaces can be wonderful, beautiful, well-functioning, and have the occupants best interest in mind. Or they can be ugly, hard to use, fire hazards waiting to happen. It all depends on how it was laid out. Interior Design is not just picking out pretty colors. It is studying building codes, human behavior, keeping up with new health and environmentally conscious products, ergonomics, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a ton of other information to produce the best, most user friendly designs possible. if an Interior designer is not doing all of this they are, in my opinion, a bad designer. Not just bad, but irresponsible.

That brings the conversation to a concept that all Interior Design projects should utilize. Evidence-based design is defined by healthdesign.org as "the process of basing decisions about the built environment on credible research to achieve the best possible outcomes." While this concept is mainly taking root in health care design, I feel that all aspects of ID should follow this principle idea. We expect doctors and pharmacists to keep up on the latest research so that they may best treat us. Why should we not expect the same of our ID professionals? ID has such a large influence on people every day it should not even be a question. We should be basing our designs on research and evidence, not whims and our personal preferences.

There is a ton of research out there if designers will just go and look for it. Not that research should ever completely take away from the creative aspect. All projects should have their own feel and beauty to them, they should just be based on what is proven to be best for the end user. Sites like informedesign.com is a great resource for design-based research. Many other scholarly journals can be used to establish a good basis for your design that will benefit everyone that might use it.

As a Master's student in ID, it is my responsibility to add to the growing amount of design information there is out there already. I have learned how important it is to have research to utilize in the design process. Research in ID should no longer be just about programming and information gathering, it should also include research that is published in scholarly journals that has been reviewed by our peers. A great book on this subject is called "Informing Design" by Joan I. Dickinson and John P. Marsden.

Evidence-Based design seems to make common sense to me as a designer. I can't understand why there seems to be a backlash against it in the ID community. We as designers are here to do what is best for our client, and the end user. Why not use all of the resources at our disposal to do the best job that we can?